|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,915 Year: 4,172/9,624 Month: 1,043/974 Week: 2/368 Day: 2/11 Hour: 1/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
AndyGodLove  Suspended Member (Idle past 5799 days) Posts: 18 From: Wentworth Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Gay Marriage | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 9004 From: Canada Joined: |
They already have the same rights I have. I don't think it has been made clear to me. I'm not so sure that a civil union in the US grants the same rights as a marriage. Does it? Here in a more enlightened country we solved the problem. And, so far, society has not collapsed. Of course, we also laugh at politicians who dare to let it be known they are younger earthers. And their party tries to hide the fact.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
BeagleBob Member (Idle past 5707 days) Posts: 81 Joined: |
quote: Being raised by heterosexual couples didn't make the vast majority of homosexuals in society any more heterosexual. Why would homosexual couples have some special voodoo effect that turns their children gay? You say that being raised by homosexuals will turn otherwise-heterosexual kids gay, but don't address the fact that being raised by heterosexuals doesn't stop kids from growing up homosexual. You argue firmly that you know the natural causes of heterosexuality, but are baffled or unconvinced of the natural causes of homosexuality when your knowledge of the mechanisms of both are equally nebulous (and therefore, it must be a "choice" on some level). You argue that if it becomes medically possible to alter your sexuality, those who don't undergo this therapy will prove that homosexuality is a "choice," when at the same time you ignore the fact that this argument would make ethnicity a "choice" (due to Michael Jackson's plastic surgeries). You're upholding intellectual double-standards and ignoring the other side of the equation. Logical fallacies aside, if you want people to open up and accept your views, you're going to have to grant the same courtesy and exercise the same capacity you want from us.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
FliesOnly Member (Idle past 4175 days) Posts: 797 From: Michigan Joined: |
Hoot Mon writes: Have you read anything...anything at fucking all that I have written in response this immature claim you keep making? Anything...at...all?
I'm sorry to have to say this again: They already have the same rights I have. Hoot Mon writes: Have you read anything...anything at fucking all that I have written in response this immature claim you keep making? Anything...at...all?
I disagree. That assertion drops in the bin with all the other strange "marriages" people want to have with multiple wives, beasts, siblings, and ghosts.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
BeagleBob Member (Idle past 5707 days) Posts: 81 Joined: |
quote:
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
"Church" isn't defined as a scientology building and "pants" isn't defined as being 28 inch waists. However, "marriage" is defined as the union of one man and one woman. False analogy.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
deerbreh Member (Idle past 2923 days) Posts: 882 Joined: |
quote: Of course it is. And in many Southern states up until the 1960s marriage was also defined as the union of one man and one woman OF THE SAME RACE. You don't see even the teeniest bit of irony there? Are you sure it is a false analogy? Defining marriage as only heterosexual marriage is a religion based decision. Therefore it is unconstitutional. Full stop.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Of course it is. And in many Southern states up until the 1960s marriage was also defined as the union of one man and one woman OF THE SAME RACE. Prove it. You are mistaken or ill-informed. The RIA prohibited the marriage of "non-whites" to whites. It is violation of the 14th Amendment to have restrictions based on race. DOMA, on the other hand, does not explicitly restrict marriages like the RIA did so it doesn't violate the 14th.
Defining marriage as only heterosexual marriage is a religion based decision. Therefore it is unconstitutional. Full stop. No, it wasn't. I quoted the actual legislators on why they passed DOMA in the other thread on gay marriage and it wasn't for religious reasons. I don't feel like digging it up right now so if you can support your assertion then prove that one too. ABE: Nevermind, found it: From Congress of the United StatesHouse of Representatives SUMMARY AND ANALYSIS DEFENSE OF MARRIAGE ACTAS INTRODUCED ON MAY 7, 1996 quote: Edited by Catholic Scientist, : see ABE
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
lyx2no Member (Idle past 4747 days) Posts: 1277 From: A vast, undifferentiated plane. Joined: |
Do you really not understand the difference between a reason and a rationalization, or do you think that we don't? Either way . you're a moron.
Kindly There is a spider by the water pipe.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
BeagleBob Member (Idle past 5707 days) Posts: 81 Joined: |
quote: Well, I don't know about that.
quote: http://www.sciencedaily.com/...ases/2007/08/070823110231.htm
quote: Two-spirit - Wikipedia Sacred, sanctified, socially-recognized homosexual unions did exist, it's just a matter of time and culture, which are very much subject to change. For the longest time in Europe, marriage was mostly a matter of political convenience and little more. There's nothing a priori about the term "marriage" that necessitates a heterosexual union. If expanding the definition and legal status of "marriage" has occurred in the past, there's nothing that morally or rationally keeps us from doing so now.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Do you really not understand the difference between a reason and a rationalization, or do you think that we don't? Either way . you're a moron. I could just as easily rationalize the antithesis. So how do I choose a side? I just go with my gut. Or I could choose the side of the people who aren't insulting me personally
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Fosdick  Suspended Member (Idle past 5530 days) Posts: 1793 From: Upper Slobovia Joined: |
NN writes:
I don't know, but I think it would have to. It's only a states-based issue anyway. I serious doubt that the SCOTUS will ever rule on the constitutionality of "gay marriage"...unless Social Security somehow becomes involved. I don't think it has been made clear to me. I'm not so sure that a civil union in the US grants the same rights as a marriage. Does it? ”HM
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
There's nothing a priori about the term "marriage" that necessitates a heterosexual union. I'm concerned with the 1000+ laws in the United States that refer to Marriage explicitly. When they were written, they were understood to be heterosexual unions.
If expanding the definition and legal status of "marriage" has occurred in the past, there's nothing that morally or rationally keeps us from doing so now. I'm not totally opposed to redefining Marriage. In fact, I think that it should be done to incorporate homosexual "marriages". I don't think that Marriage is currently unconstitutional and that it has to be changed. I think we should fully consider the ramifications before the change and minimize the loop-holes.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Fosdick  Suspended Member (Idle past 5530 days) Posts: 1793 From: Upper Slobovia Joined: |
BeagleBob, really great article! But I also noticed what Tulchin says about a proving historical "gay marriage":
quote:Yes, I should think it would be impossible to prove. Nevertheless, this article is very unfriendly to the argument, my argument, that 2-sex marriage is the only tradition. BeagleBob writes:
Is my edit fair? Sacred, sanctified, socially-recognized homosexual unions did exist, [although it can't be proven,] it's just a matter of time and culture, which are very much subject to change. ”HM
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
lyx2no Member (Idle past 4747 days) Posts: 1277 From: A vast, undifferentiated plane. Joined: |
I could just as easily rationalize the antithesis. So, you don't know the difference?
So how do I choose a side? You choose sides by sticking up for the rights of your fellow Americans and not for a supposed consistency in the meaning of a word. "Marriage" is a word. Homosexuals are humans. Sacrifice the word to the humans. Edited by lyx2no, : [qa]? Kindly There is a spider by the water pipe.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Fosdick  Suspended Member (Idle past 5530 days) Posts: 1793 From: Upper Slobovia Joined: |
FO writes:
Yeah, I read all your fucking redundant stuff, but I don't agree with either the stuff or your opinion of it. So, I'm a bigot because I don't agree with you and your fucking stuff. But who's opinion counts for more? And how do you measure the difference? You, FO, can't get past the mindset that anyone who disagrees with you is a fucking bigot. Have you read anything...anything at fucking all that I have written in response this immature claim you keep making? Anything...at...all? Have you read anything...anything at fucking all that I have written in response this immature claim you keep making? Anything...at...all? ”HM
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024