Gay Marriage

[Dimkaumd]

CkG: dont get me wrong...im not supporting pedophiles or canibals or anything...and i dont literally mean ALL lifestyles...but at least the ones that dont infringe on other ppls rights. for instance....i think muslim treatment of women is deplorable. and even though its not a norm in our society to cover up our women, i think that if a muslim woman in america wants to do it, it is not up to the government to stop her. France is a good example of that...they will not allow religious clothing such as veils or yamakas in schools or hospitals. thats just assinine.



I like the J.S. Mill quote:
Society can and does execute its own mandates: and if it issues wrong mandates instead of right, or any mandates at all in things with which it ought not to meddle, it practises a social tyranny more formidable than many kinds of political oppression, since, though not usually upheld by such extreme penalties, it leaves fewer means of escape, penetrating much more deeply into the details of life, and enslaving the soul itself.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Dimkaumd
CkG: dont get me wrong...im not supporting pedophiles or canibals or anything...and i dont literally mean ALL lifestyles...but at least the ones that dont infringe on other ppls rights. for instance....i think muslim treatment of women is deplorable. and even though its not a norm in our society to cover up our women, i think that if a muslim woman in america wants to do it, it is not up to the government to stop her. France is a good example of that...they will not allow religious clothing such as veils or yamakas in schools or hospitals. thats just assinine.

That may be true, but legal status is what the gov't controls. Veils aren't allowed for drivers licenses are they?(a whole different debate ) The gov't set the guidelines for gaining the "right" to drive on their roads. Does wearing a veil infringe on other people's "right" to drive? No, but a drivers license is also identification (legally) and doesn't wearing a veil get in the way of picture identification? I'm sure we could get around that issue with ID chips implanted at birth though...

The gov't giving legal standing to homosexual marriage while not infringing on other people's "rights" perse - it is well within the gov't power to set guidelines for what they give legal status to...since "marriage" is used for other things within our gov't structure.

To me this issue isn't about what people do in their bedrooms - it's about what the gov't gives legal standing to. The gov't has shown it is going to regulate marriage and that doesn't look like it will change so they are well within their power to regulate what constitutes "marriage".
IMO - the activists are fighting the wrong battle with this "gay marriage" agenda. They'd have a much better argument that the gov't shouldn't be involved in "marriage" instead of trying to give the gov't more control of marriage. That may or may not be my personal stance but from a tactical standpoint i think they are fighting the wrong battle.


btw- thanks for the civil debate Some here think it's just a matter of throwing around the word "bigot" or other such BS. I'm no homophobe, but I don't believe the gov't has to give it legal status based on a "rights" argument.

CkG

 

[Klixxer]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Klixxer

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Dimkaumd
HeroOfPellinor:
In your tirade of flummery above you speak of rights. Can you define a right? who gives you a right to marry? who creates a right for a man to marry a woman but not another man? Its like saying we have a right to ride a public bus....but not if your black. When a homosexual couple gets married they do not violate anyone else's rights. They are giving consent to be married to each other. and thus they have a right to do so. You also speak of the definition of marriage. The definition of marriage in inherantly skewed because it was designed by heteosexuals. that does NOT means that the status quo defintion is correct...it simply means that it is archaic and is in need of reform. the role of society is to accomodate everyone's lifestyle unless it violates other peoples rights. gay marriage in no way violates anyone's rights. until you can make a profound arguement why it does violate others rights, your assertions are unsubstantial.

No, actually NO marriage is a "right". The gov't has set limits to who can and can't get married. Infact certain people do not have any legal "right" to marry here in the US.
3 examples of what I am speaking of:
1. Those determined by the state to not be of competent or sound mind. This includes those with mental retardation. This varies state to state depending on their guardianship statutes but the Federal gov't none the less condones denying the "right".
2. Age. The gov't restricts those who have this "right" to those of legal age. Again this may vary from state to state but the Federal gov't none the less condones denying the "right".
3. # of people in a marriage unit and # of units one can be in. The gov't restricts this marriage "right" by limiting how many "marriages" you can be in and also limits the "unit" to two.

These are all based on what the gov't has defined marriage as and what rules they put in place around it. So anyway this "right" isn't really a "right" as it sits now -there are guidelines that limit it. The issue of who "grants" these "rights" isn't really the correct context. The gov't doesn't "grant" rights - it provides legal guidelines for those seeking to exercise these "rights" which essentially is gov't and legal recognition thereof.
No, it is not society's role to "accomodate everyone's lifestyle" and it certainly isn't the gov't role to give legal status to everyone's lifestyle.

CkG

1. Seriously? Even if the legal guardian agrees?
2. Of course, as long as you are not of legal age, goes without saying
3. Yup

Is it me or is there no mention of sex at all in this?

When it comes to societies role, acceptance of different lifestyles as long as it is not illegal is required.

What you are saying is basically that YOU are not ok with your government giving acceptance to a lifestyle YOU don't agree with, isn't it?

Well then, let me ask you this, should the government care about personal relationships and marriages at all? And if so, why?

1. Yes. My sister-in-law is Downs Syndrome(but very mild yet needs constant structure - basically she'll be about 12years old forever). If my mother-in-law decides to bring her guardianship status to Iowa(they moved from Wisconsin) then my SIL will lose not only her "right" to marry but also her right to vote. Iowa's system doesn't allow(ATM) for limited guardianships whereas Wisconsin does. They don't have to change which state the guardianship is filed in but it would be far more convenient to file the required paperwork here locally instead of having to send it to Wisconsin when it is due. There is continuous paperwork that gets filed when you have guardianship. Constant income/spending reports, health reports, etc. It's absolutely how much work there is to being a guardian.
2. Why is this "OK" but other limits considered "discrimination"? People married young less than 100 years ago - why is it not "legal" today? What changed?
3. Exactly so why isn't this considered "discrimination"? Why shouldn't this be a "right" too?

No, society isn't "required" to accept all lifestyles. We make laws everyday that limits what is acceptable behavior in our society.

No, I didn't say that with what I posted. I do however know that the gov't places restrictions and put in place guidelines for "rights".

"personal relationships"? - no. However if the gov't is going to base other legal things on one's marriage status then they must also define and regulate marriage.

CkG

edit - spelling

1. didn't know that and am somewhat surprised by it, I would like to say something nice like i hope she is ok, but that won't matter so i won't, i'll just join you in shaking my head at all the needless beurocracy (sp?)

2. Isn't it obvious? The children CANNOT give consent, it is not discrimination in my eyes and i am sure it isn't really in your eyes either, it is a silly argument.

3. If you want to make an argument for polygamy, do it somewhere else, i don't necessarily disagree with it, present your case if you wish to fight for that, but this is not the thread for it.

Basically your two arguments come down to the slippery slope arguments, easily dismissed, read this carefully "two consenting adults"? First we removed race, now we are about to remove sex from the equation, and just like others have fought for racial discrimination and lost you will fight for sexual preference discrimination and you will also loose.

Do you know why you will loose? Because you have no good argument against it.

I have no problemo admitting that i am a homophobe, the behaviour disgusts me, but it is not up to me to judge anyone, what makes you think YOU are big enough to do it?

 

[Dimkaumd]

CkG:
I agree with you on a few points. Personally I am a little bit reserved about allowing homosexual marriage as well for a few reasons. fraud being one of them. but at the same time I think that we have to look at it rationally. I think the government is getting involved in something it shouldnt. I also think that it is inevitable that gay marriage will become legal so I think we have to approach the issue with caution and not reluctance. I am a strong supporter of Pres. Bush, but is one of the few issues that I disagree with him. of course it in no way will impact my vote cause there are more important issues like the economy and national security.

 

[Klixxer]

Originally posted by: Dimkaumd
CkG:
I agree with you on a few points. Personally I am a little bit reserved about allowing homosexual marriage as well for a few reasons. fraud being one of them. but at the same time I think that we have to look at it rationally. I think the government is getting involved in something it shouldnt. I also think that it is inevitable that gay marriage will become legal so I think we have to approach the issue with caution and not reluctance. I am a strong supporter of Pres. Bush, but is one of the few issues that I disagree with him. of course it in no way will impact my vote cause there are more important issues like the economy and national security.

Ehrm, fraud, and you don't think that already happens? That isn't an argument against Gay marriage, that is an argument against marriage as an institution if anything.

The same thing arguement you are trying to make against gay marriage (fraud) could be applied to a whole heap of situations, how about immigration? How about anything that gives you some sort of benefit?

So your only argument is against marriage itself, i have yet to hear a GOOD argument that specifically applies to homosexual marriage, all i hear is the slippery slope arguments and now your fraud argument that isn't valid either.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Klixxer

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Klixxer

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Dimkaumd
HeroOfPellinor:
In your tirade of flummery above you speak of rights. Can you define a right? who gives you a right to marry? who creates a right for a man to marry a woman but not another man? Its like saying we have a right to ride a public bus....but not if your black. When a homosexual couple gets married they do not violate anyone else's rights. They are giving consent to be married to each other. and thus they have a right to do so. You also speak of the definition of marriage. The definition of marriage in inherantly skewed because it was designed by heteosexuals. that does NOT means that the status quo defintion is correct...it simply means that it is archaic and is in need of reform. the role of society is to accomodate everyone's lifestyle unless it violates other peoples rights. gay marriage in no way violates anyone's rights. until you can make a profound arguement why it does violate others rights, your assertions are unsubstantial.

No, actually NO marriage is a "right". The gov't has set limits to who can and can't get married. Infact certain people do not have any legal "right" to marry here in the US.
3 examples of what I am speaking of:
1. Those determined by the state to not be of competent or sound mind. This includes those with mental retardation. This varies state to state depending on their guardianship statutes but the Federal gov't none the less condones denying the "right".
2. Age. The gov't restricts those who have this "right" to those of legal age. Again this may vary from state to state but the Federal gov't none the less condones denying the "right".
3. # of people in a marriage unit and # of units one can be in. The gov't restricts this marriage "right" by limiting how many "marriages" you can be in and also limits the "unit" to two.

These are all based on what the gov't has defined marriage as and what rules they put in place around it. So anyway this "right" isn't really a "right" as it sits now -there are guidelines that limit it. The issue of who "grants" these "rights" isn't really the correct context. The gov't doesn't "grant" rights - it provides legal guidelines for those seeking to exercise these "rights" which essentially is gov't and legal recognition thereof.
No, it is not society's role to "accomodate everyone's lifestyle" and it certainly isn't the gov't role to give legal status to everyone's lifestyle.

CkG

1. Seriously? Even if the legal guardian agrees?
2. Of course, as long as you are not of legal age, goes without saying
3. Yup

Is it me or is there no mention of sex at all in this?

When it comes to societies role, acceptance of different lifestyles as long as it is not illegal is required.

What you are saying is basically that YOU are not ok with your government giving acceptance to a lifestyle YOU don't agree with, isn't it?

Well then, let me ask you this, should the government care about personal relationships and marriages at all? And if so, why?

1. Yes. My sister-in-law is Downs Syndrome(but very mild yet needs constant structure - basically she'll be about 12years old forever). If my mother-in-law decides to bring her guardianship status to Iowa(they moved from Wisconsin) then my SIL will lose not only her "right" to marry but also her right to vote. Iowa's system doesn't allow(ATM) for limited guardianships whereas Wisconsin does. They don't have to change which state the guardianship is filed in but it would be far more convenient to file the required paperwork here locally instead of having to send it to Wisconsin when it is due. There is continuous paperwork that gets filed when you have guardianship. Constant income/spending reports, health reports, etc. It's absolutely how much work there is to being a guardian.
2. Why is this "OK" but other limits considered "discrimination"? People married young less than 100 years ago - why is it not "legal" today? What changed?
3. Exactly so why isn't this considered "discrimination"? Why shouldn't this be a "right" too?

No, society isn't "required" to accept all lifestyles. We make laws everyday that limits what is acceptable behavior in our society.

No, I didn't say that with what I posted. I do however know that the gov't places restrictions and put in place guidelines for "rights".

"personal relationships"? - no. However if the gov't is going to base other legal things on one's marriage status then they must also define and regulate marriage.

CkG

edit - spelling

1. didn't know that and am somewhat surprised by it, I would like to say something nice like i hope she is ok, but that won't matter so i won't, i'll just join you in shaking my head at all the needless beurocracy (sp?)

2. Isn't it obvious? The children CANNOT give consent, it is not discrimination in my eyes and i am sure it isn't really in your eyes either, it is a silly argument.

3. If you want to make an argument for polygamy, do it somewhere else, i don't necessarily disagree with it, present your case if you wish to fight for that, but this is not the thread for it.

Basically your two arguments come down to the slippery slope arguments, easily dismissed, read this carefully "two consenting adults"? First we removed race, now we are about to remove sex from the equation, and just like others have fought for racial discrimination and lost you will fight for sexual preference discrimination and you will also loose.

Do you know why you will loose? Because you have no good argument against it.

I have no problemo admitting that i am a homophobe, the behaviour disgusts me, but it is not up to me to judge anyone, what makes you think YOU are big enough to do it?

1. She is fine and realistically doesn't even know -she just knows she is "special" Good kid(22) though.
2. So 14 ~100 years ago was alright but today it is not? What changed? Are "rights" only for those deemed "legal" by the gov't?
3. No, this isn't a case FOR anything. The FACT is - it is a "unit" or lifestyle that is not given legal standing by the gov't. The point is that the gov't does infact set guidelines for "marriage" and limits the "right".

So no, they are not slippery slope arguments - they are points that show that the gov't does restrict the "right" of marriage. Those who do not fit within those guidelines are not granted legal status by our gov't.

I just don't buy the argument that it is a "right" for those that aren't granted legal standing due to the guidelines. I've pointed out 3(4) ways the gov't limits access to legal "marriage" and so this isn't a "rights" issue.

Yeah, the behavior disgusts me, but that does not a homophobe make I am not afraid of homosexuals, nor do I hate them. I dislike their lifestyle and sexual choices but not them. I worked along side a homosexual salesman when I was selling cars. He also owned a gay bar with his partner and he'd invite us all over for some beer and pool(billiards to some here ) on occasion. Uncomfortable the first time? Sure, but no more than walking into any other bar where you are a first timer and the regulars just look and stare at you until you become part of the crowd. So no, I'm not a homophobe by any stretch yet I dislike and am disgusted by homosexual acts.

CkG

 

[Dimkaumd]

you are right. it happens now with heteosexual marriage too, im just afraid it may increase substantially with legalization of gay marriage. but this is in no way an arguement against it. stop with the slippery slope stuff btw...my observation about fake marriaged and fraud is not aimed at making the perception that it is bad or harmful but rather that it may have certain implications that we must be ready for. do you understand what i mean?

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Dimkaumd
CkG:
I agree with you on a few points. Personally I am a little bit reserved about allowing homosexual marriage as well for a few reasons. fraud being one of them. but at the same time I think that we have to look at it rationally. I think the government is getting involved in something it shouldnt. I also think that it is inevitable that gay marriage will become legal so I think we have to approach the issue with caution and not reluctance. I am a strong supporter of Pres. Bush, but is one of the few issues that I disagree with him. of course it in no way will impact my vote cause there are more important issues like the economy and national security.

Maybe the gov't shouldn't be involved in marriage, but the fact is -they are. They also have set guidelines to marriage as I have pointed out which puts limits/guidelines on it's legal standing. That being the case, I don't buy the argument that it is a "right". Like I said - the argument shouldn't be for more marriage controlled by the gov't - it should be no gov't involvement at all.

CkG

 

[Klixxer]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Klixxer

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Klixxer

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Dimkaumd
HeroOfPellinor:
In your tirade of flummery above you speak of rights. Can you define a right? who gives you a right to marry? who creates a right for a man to marry a woman but not another man? Its like saying we have a right to ride a public bus....but not if your black. When a homosexual couple gets married they do not violate anyone else's rights. They are giving consent to be married to each other. and thus they have a right to do so. You also speak of the definition of marriage. The definition of marriage in inherantly skewed because it was designed by heteosexuals. that does NOT means that the status quo defintion is correct...it simply means that it is archaic and is in need of reform. the role of society is to accomodate everyone's lifestyle unless it violates other peoples rights. gay marriage in no way violates anyone's rights. until you can make a profound arguement why it does violate others rights, your assertions are unsubstantial.

No, actually NO marriage is a "right". The gov't has set limits to who can and can't get married. Infact certain people do not have any legal "right" to marry here in the US.
3 examples of what I am speaking of:
1. Those determined by the state to not be of competent or sound mind. This includes those with mental retardation. This varies state to state depending on their guardianship statutes but the Federal gov't none the less condones denying the "right".
2. Age. The gov't restricts those who have this "right" to those of legal age. Again this may vary from state to state but the Federal gov't none the less condones denying the "right".
3. # of people in a marriage unit and # of units one can be in. The gov't restricts this marriage "right" by limiting how many "marriages" you can be in and also limits the "unit" to two.

These are all based on what the gov't has defined marriage as and what rules they put in place around it. So anyway this "right" isn't really a "right" as it sits now -there are guidelines that limit it. The issue of who "grants" these "rights" isn't really the correct context. The gov't doesn't "grant" rights - it provides legal guidelines for those seeking to exercise these "rights" which essentially is gov't and legal recognition thereof.
No, it is not society's role to "accomodate everyone's lifestyle" and it certainly isn't the gov't role to give legal status to everyone's lifestyle.

CkG

1. Seriously? Even if the legal guardian agrees?
2. Of course, as long as you are not of legal age, goes without saying
3. Yup

Is it me or is there no mention of sex at all in this?

When it comes to societies role, acceptance of different lifestyles as long as it is not illegal is required.

What you are saying is basically that YOU are not ok with your government giving acceptance to a lifestyle YOU don't agree with, isn't it?

Well then, let me ask you this, should the government care about personal relationships and marriages at all? And if so, why?

1. Yes. My sister-in-law is Downs Syndrome(but very mild yet needs constant structure - basically she'll be about 12years old forever). If my mother-in-law decides to bring her guardianship status to Iowa(they moved from Wisconsin) then my SIL will lose not only her "right" to marry but also her right to vote. Iowa's system doesn't allow(ATM) for limited guardianships whereas Wisconsin does. They don't have to change which state the guardianship is filed in but it would be far more convenient to file the required paperwork here locally instead of having to send it to Wisconsin when it is due. There is continuous paperwork that gets filed when you have guardianship. Constant income/spending reports, health reports, etc. It's absolutely how much work there is to being a guardian.
2. Why is this "OK" but other limits considered "discrimination"? People married young less than 100 years ago - why is it not "legal" today? What changed?
3. Exactly so why isn't this considered "discrimination"? Why shouldn't this be a "right" too?

No, society isn't "required" to accept all lifestyles. We make laws everyday that limits what is acceptable behavior in our society.

No, I didn't say that with what I posted. I do however know that the gov't places restrictions and put in place guidelines for "rights".

"personal relationships"? - no. However if the gov't is going to base other legal things on one's marriage status then they must also define and regulate marriage.

CkG

edit - spelling

1. didn't know that and am somewhat surprised by it, I would like to say something nice like i hope she is ok, but that won't matter so i won't, i'll just join you in shaking my head at all the needless beurocracy (sp?)

2. Isn't it obvious? The children CANNOT give consent, it is not discrimination in my eyes and i am sure it isn't really in your eyes either, it is a silly argument.

3. If you want to make an argument for polygamy, do it somewhere else, i don't necessarily disagree with it, present your case if you wish to fight for that, but this is not the thread for it.

Basically your two arguments come down to the slippery slope arguments, easily dismissed, read this carefully "two consenting adults"? First we removed race, now we are about to remove sex from the equation, and just like others have fought for racial discrimination and lost you will fight for sexual preference discrimination and you will also loose.

Do you know why you will loose? Because you have no good argument against it.

I have no problemo admitting that i am a homophobe, the behaviour disgusts me, but it is not up to me to judge anyone, what makes you think YOU are big enough to do it?

1. She is fine and realistically doesn't even know -she just knows she is "special" Good kid(22) though.
2. So 14 ~100 years ago was alright but today it is not? What changed? Are "rights" only for those deemed "legal" by the gov't?
3. No, this isn't a case FOR anything. The FACT is - it is a "unit" or lifestyle that is not given legal standing by the gov't. The point is that the gov't does infact set guidelines for "marriage" and limits the "right".

So no, they are not slippery slope arguments - they are points that show that the gov't does restrict the "right" of marriage. Those who do not fit within those guidelines are not granted legal status by our gov't.

I just don't buy the argument that it is a "right" for those that aren't granted legal standing due to the guidelines. I've pointed out 3(4) ways the gov't limits access to legal "marriage" and so this isn't a "rights" issue.

Yeah, the behavior disgusts me, but that does not a homophobe make I am not afraid of homosexuals, nor do I hate them. I dislike their lifestyle and sexual choices but not them. I worked along side a homosexual salesman when I was selling cars. He also owned a gay bar with his partner and he'd invite us all over for some beer and pool(billiards to some here ) on occasion. Uncomfortable the first time? Sure, but no more than walking into any other bar where you are a first timer and the regulars just look and stare at you until you become part of the crowd. So no, I'm not a homophobe by any stretch yet I dislike and am disgusted by homosexual acts.

CkG

1. glad to hear that, a society that treats it's citizens that way is indeed a society to be proud of.

2. Take 100 years ago, one black man and one white woman, do you see a marriage happening there? The society evolved.

3. The same argument can be used against marriage altogether, OR it can be used as an argument to allow whatever, it really has nothing to do with gay marriage, does it? Or let me put it another way, in WHAT way is polygamy connected to gay marriage? It IS the same old tired slipperly slope argument, "if whe are going to allow gay marriage why not marriage between several people" i can't why it is so hard to understand the concept of two concenting adults.

Well, then, maybe i am no homophobe either, or maybe we both are you just have a problem admitting it, doesn't really matter, does it?

 

[Dimkaumd]

CkG:
the last statement was a lil nebulous to me. I am not sure what your point is. you are right, the government does set the guidelines for marriage. And? how does this support the arguement against gay marriage? just as the government sets certain rules, it has the power to amend them. Why not make it so that the definition of marriage applies to all consenting adults not just heterosexual consenting adults?

 

[Klixxer]

Originally posted by: Dimkaumd
you are right. it happens now with heteosexual marriage too, im just afraid it may increase substantially with legalization of gay marriage. but this is in no way an arguement against it. stop with the slippery slope stuff btw...my observation about fake marriaged and fraud is not aimed at making the perception that it is bad or harmful but rather that it may have certain implications that we must be ready for. do you understand what i mean?

Yes i understand what you mean and i even think we are looking at this from the same perspective.

We both agree that it would be discriminatory not to allow it and we can both agree that there will be problems with it.

The question then becomes, how much problem does there have to be before the state starts discriminating for whatever reason.

I believe we agree on that issue to, the state is not a forum for discrimination, it is by the people for the people, and for ALL of the people, regardless of race, gender or sexual preference.

I am not an American, i am German (actually i am a Finnish jew who lives in Germany.), but that has little to do with my beliefs.

 

[Klixxer]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Dimkaumd
CkG:
I agree with you on a few points. Personally I am a little bit reserved about allowing homosexual marriage as well for a few reasons. fraud being one of them. but at the same time I think that we have to look at it rationally. I think the government is getting involved in something it shouldnt. I also think that it is inevitable that gay marriage will become legal so I think we have to approach the issue with caution and not reluctance. I am a strong supporter of Pres. Bush, but is one of the few issues that I disagree with him. of course it in no way will impact my vote cause there are more important issues like the economy and national security.

Maybe the gov't shouldn't be involved in marriage, but the fact is -they are. They also have set guidelines to marriage as I have pointed out which puts limits/guidelines on it's legal standing. That being the case, I don't buy the argument that it is a "right". Like I said - the argument shouldn't be for more marriage controlled by the gov't - it should be no gov't involvement at all.

CkG

That argument is a lot better, at least i like it a lot more, but your question still stands, you never answered it yourself.

In your opinion, should the marriage legislation be removed?

Perhaps we can even agree on this one, i say YES.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Klixxer
1. glad to hear that, a society that treats it's citizens that way is indeed a society to be proud of.

2. Take 100 years ago, one black man and one white woman, do you see a marriage happening there? The society evolved.

3. The same argument can be used against marriage altogether, OR it can be used as an argument to allow whatever, it really has nothing to do with gay marriage, does it? Or let me put it another way, in WHAT way is polygamy connected to gay marriage? It IS the same old tired slipperly slope argument, "if whe are going to allow gay marriage why not marriage between several people" i can't why it is so hard to understand the concept of two concenting adults.

Well, then, maybe i am no homophobe either, or maybe we both are you just have a problem admitting it, doesn't really matter, does it?

2. Umm.. is there still not "discrimination" regarding marriage? Or is it that you agree with the limitations the gov't placed on it so it doesn't matter to you? The point I'm making is that the gov't sets the guidelines for what legally constitutes a marriage. No one's "rights" are being denied here. If you follow the guidelines you will be legally recognized as married. The racial issue excluded people based on skin color - not a lifestyle choice. The gov't today excludes people that aren't a certain age(an age that is higher today then it was before).

3. You don't seem to be understanding what I'm saying. Either you are purposefully doing so or truly don't understand. This isn't about "slippery slope" - this was another point showing that the gov't limits what is legally defined as "marriage".

Maybe you don't understand homophobia, or maybe you are a homophobe - that is of no concern to me. But I know that I am not one because I am neither afraid of them nor do I hate them. I however dislike homosexual acts. Hate the sin - not the sinner

CkG

 

[Painman]

261 posts, wow, everyone here loves beating this dead horse into sausage meat, don't they?

Just for the record: I Like Asparagus.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Dimkaumd
CkG:
the last statement was a lil nebulous to me. I am not sure what your point is. you are right, the government does set the guidelines for marriage. And? how does this support the arguement against gay marriage? just as the government sets certain rules, it has the power to amend them. Why not make it so that the definition of marriage applies to all consenting adults not just heterosexual consenting adults?

No, that last statement is just fine. I know it confuses some people but it's what I truly think.

It isn't an argument against homosexual marriage - except to properly frame the debate. This is a question of changing the law to give legal status to homosexuals - not a "rights" debate. The law isn't being changed to exclude - it already does on many fronts because of how it's defined by the gov't.
Why not change it? For the simple fact that they don't have to because there is not violation of "rights"; also I do have to point out that it is not restricted to heterosexual consenting adults - homosexual consenting adults can marry under our current guideline - they just have to marry someone of the opposite sex(semantics? sure but bi-sexuals can marry).
My argument has been against it being a "right". It is within the gov't power to change the legal definition of marriage but the DoMA(1996) seemed to reaffirm the gov't stance on this legal definition issue. Send legislation through to change it if you wish.

CkG

 

[Klixxer]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Klixxer
1. glad to hear that, a society that treats it's citizens that way is indeed a society to be proud of.

2. Take 100 years ago, one black man and one white woman, do you see a marriage happening there? The society evolved.

3. The same argument can be used against marriage altogether, OR it can be used as an argument to allow whatever, it really has nothing to do with gay marriage, does it? Or let me put it another way, in WHAT way is polygamy connected to gay marriage? It IS the same old tired slipperly slope argument, "if whe are going to allow gay marriage why not marriage between several people" i can't why it is so hard to understand the concept of two concenting adults.

Well, then, maybe i am no homophobe either, or maybe we both are you just have a problem admitting it, doesn't really matter, does it?

2. Umm.. is there still not "discrimination" regarding marriage? Or is it that you agree with the limitations the gov't placed on it so it doesn't matter to you? The point I'm making is that the gov't sets the guidelines for what legally constitutes a marriage. No one's "rights" are being denied here. If you follow the guidelines you will be legally recognized as married. The racial issue excluded people based on skin color - not a lifestyle choice. The gov't today excludes people that aren't a certain age(an age that is higher today then it was before).

3. You don't seem to be understanding what I'm saying. Either you are purposefully doing so or truly don't understand. This isn't about "slippery slope" - this was another point showing that the gov't limits what is legally defined as "marriage".

Maybe you don't understand homophobia, or maybe you are a homophobe - that is of no concern to me. But I know that I am not one because I am neither afraid of them nor do I hate them. I however dislike homosexual acts. Hate the sin - not the sinner

CkG

2. Yes there is still discrimination regarding marriage, as long as two consenting adults of whatever, race, gender or sexual preference cannot be married there is discrimination. When people are being denied benifits because of their sexual preference, should we not call that discrimination, and why not. Is it a right to marry, I believe it is, it has fewer limits than the "right" to bear arms, would you say that that is a right? You can't win this discussion because discriminating because of sexual preference is discrimination.

"3. # of people in a marriage unit and # of units one can be in. The gov't restricts this marriage "right" by limiting how many "marriages" you can be in and also limits the "unit" to two."

This is what you wrote, which is fully correct and has nothing to do with gay marriage at all, could YOU explain this to me?

Let's make a comparison.
Number of people in a marriage unit in a heterosexual relationship : 2
Number of people in a marriage unit in a homosexual relationship : 2

2==2 so that is the same

You also made a statement regarding the number of relationships they can be in at the same time

Do we have to do the numbers for that?

IOW, your third argument wasn't really against homosexuality at all? I misunderstood you completely, i thought you were going for the polygamy bit, i am sorry.

Just out of curiousity, wth was #3 about and in what way does it relate to this discussion?

 

[LunarRay]

LMK,
Partial quote of 'LunarRay' related parts.

illegal. No license to marry may issue if the resulting act is illegal

The resulting act of having sex with multiple women isn't illegal, nor is the resulting act of having homosexual sex illegal. The only question is what legality is around the license we are arguing over, as such the idea that a marriage license for homosexuals is a 'right' that law can not supercede while a marriage license for 3 people isn't simply doesn't hold water.

I think if you are going to quote my statement, as you did, at least read what you wrote that I commented on. It will make what you said sorta ... 'huh'.
So I'll help and insert it here.

quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(Partial quote of my response to a statement you made)
Bigamy is illegal as far as I'm aware in all 50 states and codified in US Code I do believe. Homosexuality is not illegal to my knowledge.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(To which you said)
one man and two women having simultaneous relations, or consecutive relations, isn?t illegal either. Bigamy is a law in regards to the legality of a marriage just as laws against homosexual marriage are. Saying that bigamy is unacceptable because it?s illegal would mean you?d have to submit that homosexual marriage in Texas is unacceptable because it?s illegal.

(To which I said)
IF it is illegal then it is illegal. No license to marry may issue if the resulting act is illegal. As far as I'm aware it is not illegal to be homosexual. When the first test case reaches the USSC we will see how they interpret the 14th. I rather suspect that given the major body of legal opinion is that homosexual marriage is protected under the Constitution it will become the accepted law of the land.

(Then you said)

You have to be consistent in your application of a principle that crates a right, and if you are consistent then you must admit that multiple partners have just as much right to be married as every other human who has right to marry who they love.

The right to say to someone ?I commit to spend my life with you? does not create a requirement for the state to recognize said commitment.

We is talking about the issuance of a marriage license. Assuming the folks get married in what ever forum they get married in, ?I commit to spend my life with you? is not obligatory. They can live on separate continents. It is the rights that attach to being 'married' that are really the important legal issues.



Another Post related to a comment made by Zephyr

(I said)

If me an Zephyr wish to have sexual relations with our Begonias then so long as it don't destroy your Acacia bush it is legal and permissible.

sure, but you don't have a right to be licensed by the state to do that.

We're at least making some headway with that concession by you.


(Back to the other post)
(I said, in part)

In many places Adultery is a violation of law.

marriage is a license, or is it a contract? or was it a right to commit?
your arguments are based on constant changing of your definitions so that they fit the argument against you. The argument for gay marriage is like trying to nail Jell-O to the wall.

There is a legal definition to the term 'contract'. Unilateral, Bilateral... The license permits two individuals to get 'married'. Once the license is had then upon signing the document and witnessed and executed by the appropriate authority, a contract exists, IMO. Sorta a marriage contract.
I don't recall changing definitions or anything of the sort. I think I write clear and concise English and to some extent French.... but, that is digressive. I further believe that I possess all the requisite qualifications to opine on the legal aspects of this issue with relative assurance that what I do write cannot be misunderstood by most folks over the age of 18. (Please excuse any mispellings, it is late and I'm tired)

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor

Originally posted by: LunarRay

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor
Okay, Lunar, where we seem to be differing mostly is over the nature of rights. Rights are not absolute. They always come with limits and conditions and are often withheld from individuals for the sake of a healthy society. Kids can't buy alcohol because then the right to drink becomes a detriment to society when alcoholic third graders fail to finish school or injur themselves or others as a result of exercising the right.
Well... Hero, they don't have that right... it is not legal for them to buy, consume or provide to other third graders that alcohol. You see... the key to all this is 'legal'. Legal is the measure by which our behavior is controlled or sought to be controlled.

Felons can't vote because then the right to vote becomes a detriment to society. People are, in fact, legally discriminated against to protect the healthfulness to society of certain rights. Marriage is no different. I'm asserting that to maintain it's positive effect on society as a standard, it needs to discriminate in the same manner so many other rights do.
Well... it is illegal for a felon who has not had his civil right of the vote restored to vote.. Society saw fit to deny that right to the felon... it is the law.
So, Hero, it follows that anything illegal is immoral as well but, what is legal must be considered moral and it must be equally available. This is the tenor of the USSC on every issue it has been faced with.

Some may well have serious argument against 'gay marriage' based on all sorts of rationalization. But, the fact remains that marriage itself is not harmed by who gets married. The basic rights we enjoy are individual rights. That is my basic argument. The right to marry and garner the benefits consistent with the 'full faith ...' clause insures Colorado recognize Utah's law as it may pertain to a Citizen of Utah passing through Colorado. This is an individual right. Income tax is individual as is Social Security as is when one dies intestate. The ability for one to be automatically enabled for health care as next of kin or the other law regarding marriage.
We must treat all individuals as equal. To deny Betty the ability to marry just because the spouse's name is Joan is denial of the same right you have to Betty. I know I married a person with a girl name. What difference does my sex have to do with it?
By no reasonable measurement is the 'Union' that is created by 'Marriage' harmed by the partners so joined.
The strongest argument I could come up with was that if that is the case and gay marriage is affirmed then gay prisoners will marry each other in prison and demand apartment living and so on (to be equal and all that)... Not that I'm against them getting married but the issue to me is in the cost and the absence of the penal aspects of prison.

edit: We need a law which denies felons the right to marriage but, I don't think that will fly..

I disagree. For the reasons stated above, I believe that once marriage is no longer defined just as a mongomous heterosexual bond, it weakens what marriage represents. If you change democracy so that all the decisions can be made by one person, it ceases to offer the benefits of democracy...you can still call it democracy, but the word no longer carries the same meaning.

And we all do have the same rights. Every man, homosexual or not, has the same right...to marry a single woman. So we all have the same rights. Should a man choose not to exercise that right, that's his choice. Gays are a minority who want a new right just for them...and that right is to destroy the defiition of marriage and marriages role in society to accomodate what is by every account a lifestyle choice and not a biological distinction. I don't think they deserve that right.

I'm not sure what reasons you refer to. The bolded parts of my statements must be read in context with the entire statement. But, that aside, I'll respond to the most immediate two paragraphs above.

Marriage was 'assumed' to be "a mongomous heterosexual bond" by some, I suppose. But, not by all or everywhere. You've just got to incorporate the 14th Amendment into your thinking. Since the 'Equal' and even the 'Due Process' clauses of the 14th were interpreted by the various USS Courts to mean all manner of things 'assumptions' prior to these interpreting events are no longer valid.
You are assuming by inserting the ''single woman'' bit. The Constitution protects certain 'rights'. No where in the legal opinions rendered by the majority of legal scholars is there included that notion about 'single women'. The closest argument you could make is that the Constitution (the 14th Amendment) does NOT protect 'gay marriage' rights and, therefore, each State may enact law as it sees fit to allow or bar 'gay marriage'. It, the US Constitution, certainly does not bar 'gay marriage'. The only issue is whether it protects it thus forcing the courts below to follow in step and thereby keeping the States from making law which does not permit it or if it don't then, as I said, it is up to the individual States.
You are entitled to voice that opinion and should write to your Representitives to let them know. But, without an Amendment clarifying the issue I fear that it is a 'right' protected by the US Constitution.
It don't matter the cause of Homosexuality one bit. All that matters is; is it or is it not protected. If it is and you don't like it then you are force to seek an Amendment to that effect... That is how it is and how it is likely to remain. IMO

 

[0roo0roo]

http://anniesrichards.tripod.com/ais.htm

 

[MrPALCO]

"The thing is, I have never heard a solid argument against Gay marriage." -- Kibbo

Here is the very best argument.

Sex between the same gender is sin.

 

[Klixxer]

Originally posted by: MrPALCO
"The thing is, I have never heard a solid argument against Gay marriage." -- Kibbo

Here is the very best argument.

Sex between the same gender is sin.

And who will judge them? Is this up to you?

I think that loving another human being is bigger than your petty views regarding what is "right".

I believe God gave us ALL brains so we can think, feel, love individually, i don't believe you have the right to impose restrictions on anyones love.

 

[MrPALCO]

"And who will judge them?" -- Klixxer


Let the Word of God be the final Judge.

 

[Hossenfeffer]

Originally posted by: MrPALCO
"The thing is, I have never heard a solid argument against Gay marriage." -- Kibbo

Here is the very best argument.

Sex between the same gender is sin.

The thing is, to many people, that's not a solid argument. The "biblical" argument tends to be a tad weak, imho. If that's the best argument out there, it won't be long before you might be neighbors to the newlyweds, Fred and Arnie.

I'm not saying I'm a fan of "the act" (which is isn't "required"), but I also haven't heard a solid argument against homosexuals marrying. Is it anal sex that is objectionable? If that's the case, what about heterosexuals engaged in such? If that's the case, how is a lesbian couple going to pull that off? By accounts I've seen/heard, many americans think sex between two men is "icky" and have been told it is a sin. So what about the man-man couples that never perform "the act", yet enjoy a loving, caring relationship? If the churches want to define marriage a certain way, fine, so long as the legal rights/protections offered to couples is available for all couples.

If a heterosexual couple doesn't choose to (or can't) have children, what makes them different from a homosexual couple?

 

[rchiu]

What if we give Gay marriage a different term, for example, domestic partnership, and give all the benefit of legal marriage to any gay/lesbian entered into such term.

I mean that way, we don't have to redefine marriage, and gay couples can have equal rights as any other couples.

Marriage has been defined as the union of man and woman since the beginning of time, that's a definition beyond court of law or nation, it is a definition of human kind. I don't know if a small group of people should have the power to freely change a definition like that.

Having said that, I don't see why gay couples don't deserve the same right as any other couples. It is thier freedom to enter into a union with a partner of same sex, and as long as they stick to the term of the union, they should deserve the same rights as anyone else.

Just MHO

 

[Klixxer]

Originally posted by: MrPALCO
"And who will judge them?" -- Klixxer


Let the Word of God be the final Judge.

I agree, let Dog judge them because you should NOT!