|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,767 Year: 4,024/9,624 Month: 895/974 Week: 222/286 Day: 29/109 Hour: 2/3 |
Thread ▼ Details |
AndyGodLove  Suspended Member (Idle past 5795 days) Posts: 18 From: Wentworth Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Gay Marriage | |||||||||||||||||||
lyx2no Member (Idle past 4742 days) Posts: 1277 From: A vast, undifferentiated plane. Joined: |
But, americans are also subject to natural laws, eh? The point is: human laws are invalid if they go against natural law. What you got here is called a silly idea ” If man were meant to fly God would have given him wings. Men have no regard for imaginary laws of nature. Gravity, thermodynamics, something else that doesn't come to mind right now . fine. Laws of Nature restricting us to act as expected by people who imagine that they know what's good for us . nope. Enjoy your laws of nature but I'm flying.
I respectfully disagree. I think there were cases of marriage annullments (divorce) that were granted because the female vagina is too small or that it caused discomforts to the couples. My wife divorced me because I'm a big, fat, booger eating slob. So I'm going to declare marriage to be about nose gold. Dude, the varied reasons that people dissolve the marriage contract is not the reason for the contract.
That thing about the too small vagina . who are you kidding, Mr. Studly? Edited by lyx2no, : Typos Kindly There is a spider by the water pipe.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4925 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
Marriage preceded the state. The state chose to recognize marriage as a legal contract for a variety of reasons, few or none of which are applicable in a wider sense to homosexual unions. Moreover, marriage is defined as a heterosexual union.
Some of the reasons the State's interest is or was in recognizing marriage are: children and heirsprotection of women/Moms property rights and dispensation Another valid reason for the State to recognize marriage is that marriage is the initial contract which serves as the primary basis for the formation of the family. Not saying there are not families without marriage, but marriage has been the standard and has helped to establish certain principles for the formation of the family such as the ones mentioned above. It's important to realize that marriage and the family precedes the State. A big problem in this debate is that marriage is being redefined in order to view it as an individual right rather than a familial contract which the State honors. Marriage is not a right for individuals but something the State recognizes as the basis for the formation of families, child-rearing, etc,.....The idea that homosexuals deserve this "right", imo, stems partly from their desires to have their unions legally and socially sanctioned. That may be an emotional need but it misses the point on what marriage is and what the State's interest is. The State should not be in the business of making an ethical decision contrary to the majority's wishes to promote homosexuality as normative. The State had valid reasons for recognizing marriage and may have valid reasons for recognizing homosexual civil unions since some injustices such as a partner not being able to make health decisions or visiting rights in hospitals, etc,.... But there is no compelling reason for the State to accept homosexual unions as marriage and give them equal status under the law. There are several reasons for this: 1. Despite many children in homosexual union households, it's not like homosexual sex naturally produces children which need legal status conferred by marriage. With DNA, the fear of bastard children (not meant in a derogatory sense but literal sense) without soceity being able to know the identity of the father is lessened, but it's still a real point. 2. The State's interest is in promoting marriage between a man and a woman for children. That's one reason the State recognizes marriage. It is true that some homosexual unions are probably better than heterosexual marriages for some children. People are different and there are always exceptions to the rule. But the idea is that women have babies. Haven't figured out to get around that, and it's better for children to have Dad around. Sorry if this sounds hateful to lesbian couples or whomever, and I am quite sure many do a bang-up job as parents, but the State cannot afford to micromanage families and we have a long history of promoting Mom and Dad, not 2 Daddys or 2 Mommies, and the arguments we should change this standard don't measure up. The interest of the family and the children, statistically overall or just what we think intuitively and has worked, trumps the emotional needs of homosexuals to feel accepted and beloved by soceity. Could say more but the above 2 points are probably sufficient.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
lyx2no Member (Idle past 4742 days) Posts: 1277 From: A vast, undifferentiated plane. Joined: |
Children and heirs . in regard to property.
Protection of women/Moms . in regard to property. Property rights and dispensation . in regard to property. Hey, I'm detecting a pattern here.
Another valid reason for the State to recognize marriage is that marriage is the initial contract which serves as the primary basis for the formation of the family. Not saying there are not families without marriage, but marriage has been the standard and has helped to establish certain principles for the formation of the family such as the ones mentioned above. Let me see . in what regard does civil marriage concern itself with the family? Humm . Oh yeah! Property. How many kids does the government suggest we have? They don't suggest anything. How many times a day does the government suggest we kiss our spouses every day? They don't suggest anything. How many vacations does the government suggest we should take the kiddiwinks on over the years? They don't suggest anything. If the government is so damn interested in Family why do they say nothing about it and everything about property.
. the ones mentioned above. Oh, you mean, like, property?
Marriage preceded the state. Yeah, that's why it's one of them there fundamental rights that must be afforded every citizen equally per the fourteenth Amendment.
Marriage is not a right for individuals but something the State recognizes as the basis for the formation of families, child-rearing, etc,.....The idea that homosexuals deserve this "right", imo, stems partly [wholey] from their desires to have their unions legally and socially sanctioned. Two parts . two comments: Are you just making stuff up now? & You don't say? Moreover, marriage is defined as a heterosexual union. Nope, 'fraid not. The government eliminated gender differentiation in civil marriage. There are no gender specific duties to define the parties. That's probably because government's soul, compelling interest to interfere in civil marriage is property resolution upon contract dissolution.
But there is no compelling reason for the State to accept homosexual unions as marriage and give them equal status under the law. The U.S. Constitution isn't compelling?
Could say more but the above 2 points are probably sufficient. Sufficient for what: To make it apparent that you've payed no heed to any of the preceding six hundred posts? You've not added one new bit or argued any old bit. Kindly There is a spider by the water pipe.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4925 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
If the government is so damn interested in Family why do they say nothing about it and everything about property. It's more than property unless you think forcing the parents and specifically the Dad to support his child is mere property. Of course, the proper of role of government is to enforce rules on property, but the idea here is not so much property but the welfare of the child and mother.
The government eliminated gender differentiation in civil marriage. Which government? Maybe in California but not in most of the country.
The U.S. Constitution isn't compelling? The US Constitution says absolutely nothing on gay marriage and does not grant any marital rights to homosexual unions. To pretend otherwise is, imo, either ignorant or disingenious. Marriage was solely heterosexual and so the right to marry, which everyone is still entitled to, is entirely the right to heterosexual unions and nothing else from a Constitutional perspective. But regardless, from a Constitutional perspective, it's the states that govern this, not the feds. The reason some have called for Congress to act is that we are going to and now have a situation where some marriages are accepted in some states and not others.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
lyx2no Member (Idle past 4742 days) Posts: 1277 From: A vast, undifferentiated plane. Joined: |
It's more than property unless you think forcing the parents and specifically the Dad to support his child is mere property. When the government forces a parent to support the child, what form does it take: Physical elevation, moral support, or, oh yeah! property? The quality of welfare enforced by the government is base on what: Self-esteem, joy, oh yeah! property? If the government is so damn interested in Family why do they say nothing about it and everything about property?
Which government? Maybe in California but not in most of the country. Fine, then show me a law that has a gender roll differential within marriage. Something along the lines of, "The dude snatches up a moose and the chippie deep fries it."
The US Constitution says absolutely nothing on gay marriage and does not grant any marital rights to homosexual unions. To pretend otherwise is, imo, either ignorant or disingenious. Excuse me, Rrhain, is that second hand smoke you've been blowing out of your . Damn, randman, read the thread.
quote: Damn, randman, read the Constitution. The Fourteenth Amendment affords equal protection of the law to all citizens. The argument that the Constitution doesn't mention Gay marriage is a classic red herring. It also doesn't mention straight marriage. How many times are y'all going to repeat this argument when it's obviously flawed? Oh yeah! You wouldn't know how many times because you haven't read the thread. Kindly There is a spider by the water pipe.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
AndyGodLove writes: I think gay marriage is a farce, it is disgusting, it is everything that is the beginning of the end of the human race. This is a test from God, and look what happened - we got AIDS. ......And look what happened to California the weekend of the notorious gay marriage honeymoons. Edited by Buzsaw, : Forgot to check spelling. BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW. The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
Hoot Mon responds to me:
quote: But you don't really want that. Oh, you say you do, but talk is cheap. You never seem to make this argument except when the question of equal marriage comes up. You don't talk about your own relationships as "civil unions." Instead, you're whole hog into the civil contract of "marriage." So as soon as you start believing your own hype, then we'll start believing you.
quote: But that isn't your argument (there's that not believing your own hype thing, again.) You want "marriage" for straights and "civil unions" for gays. That violates the Constitution or have you forgotten the lessons from Plessy v. Ferguson? There is no such thing as "separate but equal." By making a distinction, you necessarily declare that there is a difference between the two and if there is a difference, then they can legally be treated differently. Rrhain Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
Hoot Mon responds to me:
quote: Awww....sweetie, honey, baby, pussycat...you didn't think you were gonna bed me, did you? No, I'm the one with the car battery to cure you of your heterosexuality. I'm not going to have sex with you, so don't ask anymore. Rrhain Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
Hoot Mon writes:
quote: Because that's what the current contract is. Since "separate but equal" doesn't exist and is unconstitutional, the only solution is to have "marriage." See, this is why I keep on saying that you don't believe your own argument. This isn't about granting equal rights. This is about creating a separate, and thus necessarily unequal, contract. Not one state that has a "civil union" has it be the equal to marriage. Not one. Why does it have to be "marriage"? Because no other contract is the same. If you truly believe in equality, if you truly believed your own hype, then you wouldn't hesitate to call it "marriage" because that's what the contract is actually called. Since you don't, it's clear you're simply blowing smoke. Rrhain Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
Hoot Mon writes:
quote: I'm very sorry about your penis, Hoot Mon, that you have to fantasize about the great conspiracy to turn the world gay. And just because you think the gay men are out for your ass doesn't mean they really are. "Black people shouldn't be allowed to get married. Not yet. Not until it is so well understood that it can be 'corrected' if one should make that choice. I'm afraid I still suspect that if Jane and John Black should raise little Bobbie into adulthood, then little Bobbie would be more likely to turn out black. And I have to ask if that is a good thing for little Bobbie. I don't believe there are enough scientific data on this matter to know what really happens to little Bobbie." If it's a piece of crap argument when applied to race, why does it suddenly gain legitimacy when applied to sexual orientation? What caused yours, Hoot Mon? I'm still waiting for an answer. Did you accidentally see your father naked and you then developed a neurotic hatred of the male body?
quote: So because you can't handle it, that's a legitimate reason to deny rights? Remember, more people were against interracial marriage at the time Loving v. Virginia was decided than are currently against same-sex marriage. Are you saying Loving v. Virginia was wrongly decided? And how many times do I have to directly ask you that question before you give an answer?
quote: Please explain how being gay directly leads to polygamy and bestiality while being straight does not. Considering that up until just now, there was no such thing as gay marriage, how was it that polygamy and bestiality even existed in the first place? It would seem that mixed-sex marriage is the cause of polygamy and bestiality since there has only been mixed-sex marriage. All the polygamists you've ever heard of were all straight, f'rinstance.
quote: Indeed. Why on earth would you bring up polygamy and bestiality in a discussion about sexual orientation? How does being gay lead to such while being straight does not? Be specific. Rrhain Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
Hoot Mon writes:
quote: Because the contract is "marriage." A "civil union" is a separate contract and as we can tell by simple inspection, there isn't a single state that offers a "civil union" that is the equal of marriage. Not one. Since "separate but equal" is unconstitutional, the only solution is a single contract. Since the contract that exists is "marriage," then that is the contract that everybody gets. Rrhain Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
Hoot Mon writes:
quote: But gay men have those things, too. They are, after all, men. Could you be more specific?
quote: And you wonder why you keep getting tagged as a bigot. Rrhain Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
Hoot Mon writes:
quote: Ah, yes...the "refusal to accept bigotry is bigotry!" argument. How does the neighbor's marriage affect you? When gay people get married, exactly what happens to straight couples who wish to get married? Only so many people can ever get married and if we let gay people get married, the straight people won't be allowed to? Be specific. How does the neighbor's marriage affect you?
quote: That's precisely what it makes them. If you want it for yourself but don't want it for others, then you're a bigot.
quote: What does that have to do with anything? How does same-sex marriage lead to polygamy where mixed-sex marriage does not? All the polygamists we've ever heard of were all straight. It would seem that it is mixed-sex marriage that leads to polygamy.
quote: Huh? What does any of this have to do with sexual orientation? How does being gay leads to bestiality and incest while being straight does not? This country has only had mixed-sex marriage and yet there are no end of those who have sex with animals and those who have sex with their relatives. How on earth did same-sex marriage cause this when there hasn't been same-sex marriage? Are you saying that same-sex marriage is so powerful that it bend space and time and cause people from 200 years ago to do things they wouldn't normally have done? Why is it that when you think of having sex with someone of the same sex, you immediately start having fantasies of raping your infant sons and their dogs? What is it about thinking of having sex with someone of the opposite sex that stops those fantasies? Rrhain Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
Hoot Mon writes:
quote: But that isn't true. You keep on saying that only straights should be allowed to get "married"...gay people are only to be allowed "civil union." The fact that you don't call your own past relationships "civil union" indicates you don't believe your own hype. As soon as you start showing sincerity in your own argument, then we'll start believing you. Rrhain Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
Hoot Mon writes:
quote: Gays don't have the right to get married.Gays don't have the right to be secure in their households and not be evicted for being gay. Gays don't have the right to be secure in their jobs and not be fired for being gay. Gays don't have the right to be secure in their parenthood and not have their children taken away because the parents are gay. Gays don't have the right to serve in the military. Gays don't have the right not to be tortured because they are gay. And it's telling regarding the custody of children, given that you think gays are somehow a harm to children.
quote: The law doesn't say that a black person can't marry any person of the same race of his choice, just like any white person. If it's a piece of crap when applied to race, why does it suddenly gain legitimacy when applied to sexual orientation?
quote: The law says that any person can marry anybody of the same race of his choice. The law does not discriminate against the black race in that regard. If it's a piece of crap when applied to race, why does it suddenly gain legitimacy when applied to sexual orientation?
quote: And you wonder why you keep getting tagged as a bigot. You want to deny others what you want for yourself. That's the definition of bigotry.
quote: Huh? What does sexual orientation have to do with this? Why is it when you think of having sex with someone of your own sex, you immediately have fantasies of raping your sisters, their dogs, and their ghosts? How does being straight stop these things especially since most people who do that are straight? Is same-sex marriage so powerful that it can bend space and time and make people from 200 years ago do things they wouldn't normally do? Rrhain Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024