LucasForums

LucasForums (http://www.lucasforums.com/index.php)
-   Senate Chambers (http://www.lucasforums.com/forumdisplay.php?f=445)
-   -   Gay Marriage (http://www.lucasforums.com/showthread.php?t=193783)

Rogue Nine 11-13-2008 04:40 PM

Gay Marriage
 
With the recent passing of Proposition 8 in California and similar referendums around the country making same-sex marriage null and void, I thought a little food for thought would be good at this time.

Keith Olbermann's take on it.

Now, despite what you may think of Olbermann or MSNBC or whoever, what he said bears merit. I thought it was a poignant, passionate and well-reasoned speech on an institution that has both very little meaning and so yet much meaning in the world today.

Achilles 11-13-2008 09:00 PM

I watched that the other night and had much the same reaction, Niner. The bad news is that we just aren't quite there yet. The good news is that judicial review will most likely smack down all the amendments before they can be passed and that younger voters will shift the zeitgeist in the not-too-distant future.

Jeff 11-17-2008 12:13 PM

I found this article and thought it was of interest.

WordPerfect co-founder donates $1 million towards gay marriage ban

It just amazes me that people have such a problem with something that does not affect them that they are willing to donate that much money to get it banned.

tk102 12-29-2008 08:47 PM

http://www.couragecampaign.org/page/content/dontdivorce

Dagobahn Eagle 02-01-2009 11:48 PM

Wow, look at the forum risen from the dead!

Quote:

It just amazes me that people have such a problem with something that does not affect them that they are willing to donate that much money to get it banned.
I suppose that if you really believe all this hokum that this time, this time it's for real, this time the removal of a silly restriction on marriage will bring society crashing down... then one million dollars is nothing.

My view... as tough as this must be for rational people in California, the gays most of all, to handle, the pro-gay marriage side is winning the war. Given this, battles don't really matter much.

Vikinor 02-02-2009 01:28 AM

I used to not care since this did not directly affect me. Being raised Catholic, I was just fed certain views and beliefs and agreed with them.

The I guess I had a personal "epiphany" when I was about 16 or 17. I just began to think and question things.

I remember asking a priest about certain issues. Gay marriage being one of them. He said "The Church isn't anti gay. We don't believe that they shouldn't be allowed to be together, just that they don't call it marriage."

I understand this viewpoint, and I honestly kind of agree with it. Let the religions get to keep to their ways. However it seems that a key factor that is being overlooked is the separation of Church and State. It seems that most people who are against gay marriage are against it because it is their religions view. Therefore, those arguements should be irrelevant.

Besides, is marriage even all that religious anymore? I know some people still like to have traditional weddings in churches, but others can go out to vegas and get married in minutes.

I'm going to have to say that I agree 100% with what Olbermann said.

SkinWalker 02-02-2009 08:13 PM

There really is no evidence that marriage is religious in origin. Indeed, there is evidence to the contrary since all cultures have one or more forms of marriage. If this were an institution respective only to religious cults and not to secular culture, then we would not expect to see such a common practice existing in cults that have such diverse and often contradictory qualities and characteristics from each other.

We see rituals and superstitions like communions and sweat lodges that are diverse and different, but the commonality of marriage suggests, with little reason to think otherwise, that this is a human social function and one that appears to exist in form elsewhere in the animal kingdom. In short, marriage is an evolutionary advantage, even same-sex marriage.

GarfieldJL 02-02-2009 08:21 PM

Must disagree, if you open the marriage thing for same-sex couples, you open it for polygamy, marrying children, etc.

I'm for marriage being between one man and one woman.

Call it something else for same-sex couples.

SkinWalker 02-02-2009 08:27 PM

That's a fallacious -very fallacious argument. Indeed, I'd go so far as to say its uninformed. In no way does it follow that polygamy or child-marriage would be acceptable if consenting adults of the same sex were allowed to marry.

If you're opposed to same-sex marriage there is a simple fix: don't marry someone of the same-sex. If your neighbors choose to marry, it in absolutely no way has any real affect on you. Not in any reality that we exist in.

If religions want to marry, perhaps they should call it something else.

GarfieldJL 02-02-2009 08:28 PM

No, it would allow it, because if same-sex marriages are allowed, you can argue for the others as well because you are discriminating against someone's religion.

It would be a classic 1st Amendment argument.

Det. Bart Lasiter 02-02-2009 08:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GarfieldJL (Post 2584276)
No, it would allow it, because if same-sex marriages are allowed, you can argue for the others as well because you are discriminating against someone's religion.

It would be a classic 1st Amendment argument.

kids can't legally consent to sex or marriage.

SkinWalker 02-02-2009 08:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GarfieldJL (Post 2584276)
No, it would allow it, because if same-sex marriages are allowed, you can argue for the others as well because you are discriminating against someone's religion.

It would be a classic 1st Amendment argument.

Please feel free to create a syllogistic argument or set of premises that end in a conclusion to show this. Until then, it is fallacy and doesn't follow. Such arguments are generated out of fear and ignorance, but get perpetuated by a lack of critical thought. My only hope is that you'll take this opportunity to work out the argument -if you can show a set of premises or even a syllogism that ends in your conclusion, I'll revise my own position.

GarfieldJL 02-02-2009 09:03 PM

Oh that's easy Example:

We want to get married but we're not allowed to because we want more than one wife or more than one husband, because they allow marriage between people of the same-gender. It's against the 1st Amendment, freedom of Religion. And there are some radical religious sects that can use this argument.

SkinWalker 02-02-2009 11:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GarfieldJL (Post 2584294)
Oh that's easy Example:

We want to get married but we're not allowed to because we want more than one wife or more than one husband, because they allow marriage between people of the same-gender. It's against the 1st Amendment, freedom of Religion. And there are some radical religious sects that can use this argument.

I'm afraid I don't see how the allowance of marriage between people of the same sex can cause anyone to want more than one wife or husband, which is what your first sentence seems to assert. Let me see if I have the premises correct:

Because same-sex couples are allowed to marry, others will want to have multiple spouses or child spouses.

You bring up First Amendment rights and freedom of religion, but neither of these really have no bearing on the same-sex marriage issue in the way you are suggesting. There simply is no good reason to disallow same-sex marriage without invoking superstition. There are, however, many good reasons (perhaps for a different thread) to not permit marriage with children and multiple spouses.

But you haven't demonstrated how the conclusion follows the premises, the conclusion being child marriages/polygamy will result from the allowance of same-sex marriages. Indeed, in states and nations where same-sex marriage is lawful, there seem to be no significant (if any) public demands for marriage with children or polygamy. Therefore your conclusions are false and your arguments fallacious.

My intent in pointing this out isn't to be mean but, rather, to show how application of critical thought and formulating an argument is important to civil discourse and governing.

GarfieldJL 02-03-2009 10:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SkinWalker (Post 2584331)
I'm afraid I don't see how the allowance of marriage between people of the same sex can cause anyone to want more than one wife or husband, which is what your first sentence seems to assert. Let me see if I have the premises correct:

If you say one group is able to redefine the definition of marriage but you say no to the others you have a 1st Amendment and 14th Amendment situation on your hands.

Freedom of religion + the "equal protection" clause of the 14th Amendment. I'm not necessarily saying those that want same-sex marriage particularly want multiple spouses or child spouses, but people haven't thought through the implications.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SkinWalker
But you haven't demonstrated how the conclusion follows the premises, the conclusion being child marriages/polygamy will result from the allowance of same-sex marriages. Indeed, in states and nations where same-sex marriage is lawful, there seem to be no significant (if any) public demands for marriage with children or polygamy. Therefore your conclusions are false and your arguments fallacious.

Actually, I'm looking at another group of people that can capitalize on the same-sex marriage being allowed, and that is the polygamists. As marriage stands now, you can argue it is for merely the union of a couple to have children between one man and one woman. Once you change that you open this up for other groups.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SkinWalker
My intent in pointing this out isn't to be mean but, rather, to show how application of critical thought and formulating an argument is important to civil discourse and governing.

So is looking at what would happen if it is allowed and the consequences of what would happen. I have no problem with some other term being come up with that would be for a same-sex couple that gives them the same rights and stuff as though it was marriage, the issue is a matter between them and God, but they don't have to call it marriage. (Though still you could end up with the same problems going that route as well)

Dagobahn Eagle 02-03-2009 12:20 PM

Slippery slope. It's like saying that blacks and women shouldn't be allowed to vote, because then that opens for kids and animals given the right to vote, too.

Quote:

If you say one group is able to redefine the definition of marriage but you say no to the others you have a 1st Amendment and 14th Amendment situation on your hands.
Does the US have a 1st Amendment and 14th Amendment situation on its hands for redefining marriage to
  • Allow divorce.
  • Disallow spousal rape.
  • Allow inter-racial marriage?
  • Allow inter-religious (is that a word?) marriage?
  • Allow marriage between social classes?
  • Disallow arranged marriage and instead make marriage something you agree upon for love, not for the family economy (a major shift, if you were not aware)?
The words 'redefining marriage' makes it sound as if marriage is some sort of constant. It isn't. It's been tweaked and redefined so many times throughout history that you can't possibly point to any given state and say that 'this is traditional marriage'.

As long as you are a consenting adult (see, no children allowed in), feel free to marry another consenting adult. You can try to equivocate gay marriage with polygamy and child marriages all you want, but it won't fly, as we know they're different things altogether.

SkinWalker 02-03-2009 12:27 PM

The most significant reason to simply just discard the argument that same-sex marriage will lead to polygamy or pedophilia is by asking has it had this effect in other nations where same-sex marriage is allowed. The answer is "no."

The argument is this:

If same sex marriage is permitted, polygamy and pedophilia are next.
Same sex marriage is permitted in [insert nation].
[Insert nation] now allows polygamy and pedophilia.

That argument doesn't hold up regardless of which nation that permits same-sex marriage is inserted above. It is completely and utterly fallacious and ignorant. Sorry, but it is.

Astor 02-03-2009 12:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SkinWalker (Post 2584484)
The most significant reason to simply just discard the argument that same-sex marriage will lead to polygamy or pedophilia is by asking has it had this effect in other nations where same-sex marriage is allowed. The answer is "no."

As a resident of a nation that allows said 'unions' (Civil Partnerships, as they're called, but it's marriage), I can confirm that polygamy/paedophilia doesn't happen (hmmm... having something to do with them both being illegal throughout most of the civilised world) as a direct result of same-sex unions.

There were a lot of people complaining when it was allowed here, which I think is why it was changed to 'Civil Partnership' - although the idea that the word marriage should only refer to those of opposite sexes is frankly ludicrous in this day and age - it's no-one else's business except the people involved.

Dagobahn Eagle 02-03-2009 12:35 PM

Quote:

I have no problem with some other term being come up with that would be for a same-sex couple that gives them the same rights and stuff as though it was marriage, the issue is a matter between them and God, but they don't have to call it marriage.
Why not? If inter-racial couples can, why not same-sex couples? Both redefine marriage, have faced heavy opposition from Christians, and have been accused of leading to worse things (ie. "we can't allow inter-racial marriage, because then gay marriage is next").

SkinWalker 02-03-2009 12:37 PM

For those opposed to same sex marriage, here's my question:

Given that the argument above about polygamy and pedophilia have been squashed and shown to be irrelevant, how then does the marriage of two people of the same sex actually affect you? What real, tangible influence does it have on your own day-to-day life or ability to live even in the same neighborhood?

Astor 02-03-2009 12:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SkinWalker (Post 2584488)
Given that the argument above about polygamy and pedophilia have been squashed and shown to be irrelevant, how then does the marriage of two people of the same sex actually affect you? What real, tangible influence does it have on your own day-to-day life or ability to live even in the same neighborhood?

This might be a purely British sensibility, but those who I have spoken with who are vehemently opposed to it often seem to have a 'not in my neighbourhood' mentality - that it doesn't matter who the people are, it's simply that it's taboo.

And then there were those who have an irrational fear that once started, it'll 'Gay up the country' (actual words).

Vikinor 02-03-2009 03:17 PM

Oh yeah. I'm not opposed to gay marriage, but I definatley don't want to see it in person. It may be homophobic, but I don't care. I often feel sick when I see two males kiss.

The way I see it, you do what you want to, but I don't have to be a part of it.

Volar the Healer 02-03-2009 05:20 PM

If you truly believe so-called "gay marriage" does not affect me or the rest of society, then why are you pushing so hard for it to be recognized? Why not just invent some other term for it, and leave the term "marriage" alone?

What gives you the right to redefine the term marriage to include something it has never included before? THAT looks like an attack upon the traditional institution of marriage - which, of course, it is.

Homosexuality is judged to be unacceptable by the overwhelming percentage of the American population, the American Medical Association, The American Psychiactric Association, and every honest religion. This should be obvious even through the media bias by simply looking at the votes. The general election before last every pro-homosexual bill floated failed...every one. This last general election every anti-homosexual bill passed..every one. Don't believe your own propoganda.

We don't care what you do in you home (Please stop saying we do.) We DO care what you're doing in our public schools with our children. Stop demanding legitimacy for the illigitimate. Homosexuality is wrong. What you, as an adult do, is your own business. But, children should not be exposed to such things.

Now keep your vile affections off my marriage!

Astor 02-03-2009 05:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Volar the Healer (Post 2584593)
If you truly believe so-called "gay marriage" does not affect me or the rest of society, then why are you pushing so hard for it to be recognized? Why not just invent some other term for it, and leave the term "marriage" alone?

As I mentioned above, the accepted term is 'Civil Partnership' - but for many, even that's unacceptable.

Quote:

What gives you the right to redefine the term marriage to include something it has never included before? THAT looks like an attack upon the traditional institution of marriage - which, of course, it is.
It was also 'traditional' for marriage to include only same-colour couples, and forced the woman to stay at home, and be subservient to the male. That changed, and i'm sure, as it evolved, there were those who claimed they were attacks on the 'traditional institution'.

Trurth is, there isn't much 'tradition' left in marriage.

Quote:

Homosexuality is judged to be unacceptable by the overwhelming percentage of the American population, the American Medical Association, The American Psychiactric Association, and every honest religion.
And who appointed them Judge of what is 'acceptable'?

Quote:

We don't care what you do in you home (Please stop saying we do.) We DO care what you're doing in our public schools with our children.
I don't know enough about teaching in American schools, so someone indulge me - is gay marriage taught there?

Quote:

Homosexuality is wrong.
In your opinion, of course (and i'm sure a few others). I myself am heterosexual, but I see no problem in what is ultimately the personal choice of the individual.

Quote:

But, children should not be exposed to such things.
Who is on about exposing children to it?

Ray Jones 02-03-2009 05:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Volar the Healer (Post 2584593)
Now keep your vile affections off my marriage!

This is a place for open minded discussion of viewpoints and thoughts, and as it has been said in Kavar's, if you don't feel comfortable about this then please leave it to those who do. :)

Dagobahn Eagle 02-03-2009 06:31 PM

Quote:

Buh yeah. I'm not opposed to gay marriage, but I definatley don't want to see it in person. It may be homophobic, but I don't care. I often feel sick when I see two males kiss.
All the more a reason for them to do it more often. I'm not 100% comfortable about it myself, but if they are forced to stayed in the closet, how's that going to change ;) ?

Quote:

If you truly believe so-called "gay marriage" does not affect me or the rest of society, then why are you pushing so hard for it to be recognized? Why not just invent some other term for it, and leave the term "marriage" alone?
I care about my fellow man, mate :) . Same way I want women to be allowed their abortions even though I don't have a uterus. Same way I want the Kurds, say, to have their own homeland even though I to my knowledge don't have a drop of Kurdish blood within me. Same reason why so many Americans were so fanatically intent on the ill-fated crusade to liberate the Iraqi people.

We humans care about one another, mate. It's just that simple.

Quote:

What gives you the right to redefine the term marriage to include something it has never included before? THAT looks like an attack upon the traditional institution of marriage - which, of course, it is.
We live in democracies. If the people want gay marriage, they should have gay marriage. If they don't want gay marriage, we have every right to convince them they're wrong. If we can't convince them it's wrong, we're still perfectly entitled to try, or even to

Funny thing about the people oppressing gays is they often have this wonderful ability to make it appear as if they are the ones under attack. Funny really, you can call your victim vile or even mentally ill, deny him rights, and try to keep your schools from teaching kids to be nice to them... and when they try to get back on their feet it's somehow them attacking you.

Quote:

Homosexuality is judged to be unacceptable by the overwhelming percentage of the American population, the American Medical Association, The American Psychiactric Association, and every honest religion.
I don't know about an "overwhelming" percentage of the US population disliking marriage the same way they overwhelmingly disliked, say, inter-racial marriage and an end to Apartheid. I'll also need links before I believe you when you say that psychiatrists' associations still recognize homosexuality as a disorder. You may also want to ask yourself why it was branded a disorder in the first place. Was it for political or bigoted reasons, or is there really something there?

The religions I buy, though. The Old Testament, nice and cheery book as it is, seem to dislike gays as much as it dislikes picking up twigs on the Sabbath or getting raped within a city without calling for help, both of which merit death penalty by stoning.

The Brick Testament can elaborate further :) .

Quote:

This should be obvious even through the media bias by simply looking at the votes. The general election before last every pro-homosexual bill floated failed...every one. This last general election every anti-homosexual bill passed..every one. Don't believe your own propoganda.
I dunno, blacks fared pretty poorly in the US country, too, only fourty years ago, and look who just got elected President. I advice you not to underestimate the ability of your countrymen to look past their differences and move on as a society. It can truly be breath-taking sometimes.

Quote:

Now keep your vile affections off my marriage!
Oh, but they are. Your marriage isn't affected in any way whatsoever.

GarfieldJL 02-03-2009 08:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dagobahn Eagle (Post 2584482)
Slippery slope. It's like saying that blacks and women shouldn't be allowed to vote, because then that opens for kids and animals given the right to vote, too.

Does the US have a 1st Amendment and 14th Amendment situation on its hands for redefining marriage to
  • Allow divorce.
  • Disallow spousal rape.
  • Allow inter-racial marriage?
  • Allow inter-religious (is that a word?) marriage?
  • Allow marriage between social classes?
  • Disallow arranged marriage and instead make marriage something you agree upon for love, not for the family economy (a major shift, if you were not aware)?
The words 'redefining marriage' makes it sound as if marriage is some sort of constant. It isn't. It's been tweaked and redefined so many times throughout history that you can't possibly point to any given state and say that 'this is traditional marriage'.

As long as you are a consenting adult (see, no children allowed in), feel free to marry another consenting adult. You can try to equivocate gay marriage with polygamy and child marriages all you want, but it won't fly, as we know they're different things altogether.

That doesn't fly because technically the United States does not allow for set permanent social classes, inter-racial marriages are still between 1 man and 1 woman. The divorce issue has never been one really, I don't even know where you came up with the inter-religious issue aside from ticking people's parents off and they often still got married (my grandparents would be a good example).

Seriously, your argument makes no sense, marriage is between a man and a woman, it's been that way since this country first became a country, while you had racism issues way back when, that argument doesn't fly because the fundamental definition of didn't change.

A man is a man whether he is black, brown, red, white, or pokadot, the same goes for a woman.

Vikinor 02-03-2009 08:29 PM

Ray Jones, aye I do approve.

Volar, I think people are pushing so hard because they believe it is wrong. Just like the African American population of the U.S. pushed hard to have equal rights. I don't think we are trying to redefine marriage, but you do realize marriage as a whole seems to be different to every person, culture, nation and belief. So, from my perspective, you can't redefine a term that is different depending on where you are.

As a religious term, no I don't want to redefine their marriage. I think they should continue to do what they believe. But as a legal term, I think that needs to be redefined for the U.S.

I personally have no intentions of getting married at this moment. To me, simply being in a nice long relationship with a woman is enough. I can do this and still have the right to marry at anytime. A lot of the homosexual population in the U.S. is doing this and cannot get married. Do you honestly believe this is right?

Dagobahn Eagle 02-03-2009 08:46 PM

Quote:

That doesn't fly because technically the United States does not allow for set permanent social classes
Isn't that supremely irrelevant?

Quote:

inter-racial marriages are still between 1 man and 1 woman.
Irrelevant. It was a big thing that had a lot of people up in arms, there were doomsday prophecies that it would ruin the institution of marriage and destabilize society, etc. etc. etc. Just that we take it for granted today doesn't mean it has always been such.

Quote:

The divorce issue has never been one really
Not that you know. However, Ibsen's The Doll House just faced huge controversy in China due to it ending with the female protagonist... getting a divorce.

Allowing divorce from abusive relationships, recognizing spousal rape as rape, etc. have all been huge issues even if we take them for granted today.

Quote:

Seriously, your argument makes no sense, marriage is between a man and a woman, it's been that way since this country first became a country
"Marriage is defined as a union of a man and a woman of the same colour, it's been that way since this country first became a country."

See how it works?

I fail to see how the whole 'redefinition' thing has anything to say anyhow. You can't just define a word and certain way and say "see, if you define it this way then in my eyes it hasn't been changed and never should be". What if I defined voting rights as something given to all men? Universal suffrage would then redefine the vital institution of democracy, would it not? And yet, I have a feeling you're still for allowing women the right to vote.

The ancient Greek accepted same-sex intercourse and even sex with children, but frowned upon having a relationship outside of your social class. This "traditional marriage" of yours is an illusion and nothing more.

GarfieldJL 02-03-2009 11:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dagobahn Eagle (Post 2584664)
Isn't that supremely irrelevant?

No, you brought it up and I simply deconstructed it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dagobahn Eagle
Irrelevant. It was a big thing that had a lot of people up in arms, there were doomsday prophecies that it would ruin the institution of marriage and destabilize society, etc. etc. etc. Just that we take it for granted today doesn't mean it has always been such.

Yeah, and I'm part Native American big fat hairy deal. The other stuff was just rampent idiocy because people didn't consider people of different colors to be human.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dagobahn Eagle
Not that you know. However, Ibsen's The Doll House just faced huge controversy in China due to it ending with the female protagonist... getting a divorce.

This isn't China, this is the United States of America.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dagobahn Eagle
Allowing divorce from abusive relationships, recognizing spousal rape as rape, etc. have all been huge issues even if we take them for granted today.

But they were allowed, granted people didn't have the understanding they do today, but it was allowed.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dagobahn Eagle
"Marriage is defined as a union of a man and a woman of the same colour, it's been that way since this country first became a country."

Then myself and a bunch of other people wouldn't exist, granted there were people at the time that didn't consider people of different colors to be human, but that really doesn't have anything to do with this topic.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dagobahn Eagle
I fail to see how the whole 'redefinition' thing has anything to say anyhow. You can't just define a word and certain way and say "see, if you define it this way then in my eyes it hasn't been changed and never should be". What if I defined voting rights as something given to all men? Universal suffrage would then redefine the vital institution of democracy, would it not? And yet, I have a feeling you're still for allowing women the right to vote.

The Woman's right to vote is in the US Constitution.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dagobahn Eagle
The ancient Greek accepted same-sex intercourse and even sex with children, but frowned upon having a relationship outside of your social class. This "traditional marriage" of yours is an illusion and nothing more.

So are you saying we should allow exploitation of children because the Greeks did it? Seriously, this country was founded under Judeo-Christian Values, not ancient Greek Values.

Like it or not this affects everyone, and it really ticks off a lot of people, further there is a way to use the acceptance of this to allow other things as well because otherwise it would be violating the 1st and 14th Amendment of the United States Consitution.

I've taken a Constitutional Law class, so I have some knowledge about this.

Dagobahn Eagle 02-03-2009 11:52 PM

Quote:

No, you brought it up and I simply deconstructed it.
I never said the US was allowed to construct permanent social classes. I said that it was once impossible to marry outside your race, religion and social class. Heck, it still is, for a lot of people. This in your unchanging Traditional Marriage.

Quote:

Yeah, and I'm part Native American big fat hairy deal. The other stuff was just rampent idiocy because people didn't consider people of different colors to be human.

This isn't China, this is the United States of America.

But they were allowed, granted people didn't have the understanding they do today, but it was allowed.

Then myself and a bunch of other people wouldn't exist, granted there were people at the time that didn't consider people of different colors to be human, but that really doesn't have anything to do with this topic.

The Woman's right to vote is in the US Constitution.

Are you really this ignorant of the history of civil rights and woman's rights in your own homeland, I wonder.

Yes, today universal suffrage is in the US Constitution. Today it is recognized that you have a right to have a divorce without getting shunned by your community and peers. Today white American women can marry African-American men without having their houses burned down.

Today.

Don't you realize that the nation you live in may have been different fifty or even twenty years ago? Do you know when it became recognized, legally, that spousal rape was an actual crime, subject of punishment? In 1996. Why do I bring up spousal rape? Because you seem to be under the impression that since something is ridiculous to you, it can't have been a big deal to other people in another day. This is, to be blunt, wrong.

Quote:

So are you saying we should allow exploitation of children because the Greeks did it? Seriously, this country was founded under Judeo-Christian Values, not ancient Greek Values.
I think you know yourself that this is not what I suggested. Stop being silly.

Oh, and I can't let your history revisionist attempt slip... the US was not founded on Judea-Christian values and whoever has managed to convince you otherwise is either pushing history revisionism, or a victim of same.

EDIT: Wait, wait, wait... are you OK with a 26 year old man marrying a girl who's just reached puberty? I mean, since it's between a male and a female and all :D ?

Quote:

Like it or not this affects everyone, and it really ticks off a lot of people, further there is a way to use the acceptance of this to allow other things as well because otherwise it would be violating the 1st and 14th Amendment of the United States Consitution.
Like it or not inter-racial marriage was believed to affect a lot of people, ticked a lot of people off, and was accused of being the top of a slippery slope that'd allow other horrible things such as homosexual marriage, bigamy and child marriages.

You keep saying that inter-racial marriage is trivial while same-sex marriage is this big deal. It isn't like that. Inter-racial marriage was probably a far, far bigger deal than same-sex marriage is now, and opponents pushed more or less precisely the same arguments you do.

Oh, and you do realize that your entire argument is one big Appeal To Tradition, I hope?

Quote:

Like it or not this affects everyone, and it really ticks off a lot of people, further there is a way to use the acceptance of this to allow other things as well because otherwise it would be violating the 1st and 14th Amendment of the United States Consitution.
How, exactly, does this follow? Bigamy is not a violation of your 1st Amendment 14th Amendment rights, but would be if gays were allowed to marry? I'm also curious as to what on earth marriage has to do with the 1st amendment in the first place.

I'm also curious as to why bigamists can't use the slippery slope argument with other 'redefinitions of marriage' and say that since we're redefined marriage to include inter-racial marriage, then we're perfectly justified in redefining it further to allow bigamy. Oh, wait, let me guess... inter-racial marriage doesn't count because it's still between a man and a woman.

Rogue Nine 02-04-2009 12:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Volar the Healer (Post 2584593)
If you truly believe so-called "gay marriage" does not affect me or the rest of society, then why are you pushing so hard for it to be recognized? Why not just invent some other term for it, and leave the term "marriage" alone?

Because along with the term 'marriage' comes certain legal rights. If it isn't a marriage, then the couple does not have certain rights under the law and thus are not considered equal to heterosexuals. This is discrimination and it is disgusting.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Volar the Healer
What gives you the right to redefine the term marriage to include something it has never included before?

Common sense and respect for your fellow man?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Volar the Healer
Homosexuality is judged to be unacceptable by the overwhelming percentage of the American population,

Can I please have the source for this information? Thanks.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Volar the Healer
the American Medical Association,

Wrong.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Volar the Healer
The American Psychiactric Association,

Even more wrong.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Volar the Healer
and every honest religion.

So religions that find homosexuality to be acceptable are dishonest? How quaint.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Volar the Healer
This should be obvious even through the media bias by simply looking at the votes. The general election before last every pro-homosexual bill floated failed...every one. This last general election every anti-homosexual bill passed..every one. Don't believe your own propoganda.

Because people cannot get over their bigotry. But don't worry, change will happen. In today's world, people's civil rights being violated is something that doesn't sit well for long.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Volar the Healer
We DO care what you're doing in our public schools with our children.

What are gay couples doing to children in public schools?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Volar the Healer
Stop demanding legitimacy for the illigitimate. Homosexuality is wrong.

Which medical authority says this?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Volar the Healer
But, children should not be exposed to such things.

Children should also not be exposed to husbands beating their wives. So let's just outlaw heterosexual marriage to make sure that doesn't happen.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Volar the Healer
Now keep your vile affections off my marriage!

It's people like you that make the world an intolerable place.

Dagobahn Eagle 02-04-2009 12:31 AM

I advise everyone to read that article.

Quote:

So religions that find homosexuality to be acceptable are dishonest? How quaint.
Dishonest religions also do not put sugar on their porridge.

SkinWalker 02-04-2009 12:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Volar the Healer (Post 2584593)
If you truly believe so-called "gay marriage" does not affect me or the rest of society, then why are you pushing so hard for it to be recognized? Why not just invent some other term for it, and leave the term "marriage" alone?

I want what's best for society. I actually think that same-sex marriages would be better for society. More stable homes to provide families for adopted children; more dual-income families that have spending power to make major purchases which stimulates the economy; fewer uninsured people in the health-care system; etc, etc.

As to "inventing a new term," I see no logical or rational reason to do so. Same-sex marriage has zero deleterious effect on even those that oppose it (if you don't count threatening egos as deleterious). I'm not going to rename H2O that's cold simply because you like yours at room temperature. You can get over it and accept that I have a glass of water too.

What gives you the right to redefine the term marriage to include something it has never included before? THAT looks like an attack upon the traditional institution of marriage - which, of course, it is.

Quote:

Homosexuality is judged to be unacceptable by the overwhelming percentage of the American population,
Perhaps 20 years ago. In just under a generation, the tolerance for homosexuals and same-sex marriage has increased significantly. So much so that you can hardly call the majority who are still bigoted against these concepts as "overwhelming." Indeed, it might be a struggle to even say the majority is significant its waning so fast. I'm prepared to quantify this claim should you truly want me to.

Quote:

[Homosexuality is judged to be unacceptable by] the American Medical Association, The American Psychiactric Association,
This is an uninformed statement. Neither bodies are opposed to homosexuality, indeed they've both made statements that are inclusive and tolerant of homosexuality.

Quote:

[Homosexuality is judged to be unacceptable by] every honest religion.
And most of the dishonest ones, I might add. But superstitious arguments are irrational and irrelevant. Marriage is a secular construct of society -it existed long before Christianity and it exists in some form in every single culture of humanity, regardless of the inclusion or exclusion of religious superstition.

So we can discard your three claims above regarding the "unacceptability" of homosexuality.

Quote:

We don't care what you do in you home (Please stop saying we do.) We DO care what you're doing in our public schools with our children.
Don't worry. No one is trying to marry your children in your public schools. I think you must have the wrong thread.

Quote:

Stop demanding legitimacy for the illigitimate.
Legitimacy is a social construct and society defines what is or isn't legitimate in this matter. Whether you choose to believe it or not, bigotry against homosexuality and same-sex marriage is waning. Fast. At the rate its going, in another generation homosexual couples who are involved in loving, caring relationships will be afforded the same rights my wife and I enjoy. This is kind of change and progress that makes me proud to be an American.

Quote:

Homosexuality is wrong.
Why? What rational and reasoned argument states it is wrong? Please leave out superstitious arguments.

Quote:

What you, as an adult do, is your own business. But, children should not be exposed to such things.
Right. We wouldn't want the kiddies to think or grow past their parents' bigotry would we? Lets not expose children to critical thought, rational living, and love for their neighbors.

Quote:

Now keep your vile affections off my marriage!
I want nothing to do with your marriage. I have my own. Same-sex couples want nothing to do with your marriage. They simply want their own. Nor are my hands vile. As far as you know.

GarfieldJL 02-04-2009 10:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dagobahn Eagle (Post 2584730)
I never said the US was allowed to construct permanent social classes. I said that it was once impossible to marry outside your race, religion and social class. Heck, it still is, for a lot of people. This in your unchanging Traditional Marriage.

Actually it still did happen, it was taboo, but it did happen.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dagobahn Eagle
Are you really this ignorant of the history of civil rights and woman's rights in your own homeland, I wonder.

They also had trouble realizing that skin color didn't determine whether or not someone was a person.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dagobahn Eagle
Yes, today universal suffrage is in the US Constitution. Today it is recognized that you have a right to have a divorce without getting shunned by your community and peers. Today white American women can marry African-American men without having their houses burned down.

That had to do with people not realizing that skin-color didn't mean anything.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dagobahn Eagle
Oh, and I can't let your history revisionist attempt slip... the US was not founded on Judea-Christian values and whoever has managed to convince you otherwise is either pushing history revisionism, or a victim of same.

No, it was founded on Judea-Christian values, the founding fathers weren't atheists. The first amendment is freedom of religion, not freedom from religion.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dagobahn Eagle
EDIT: Wait, wait, wait... are you OK with a 26 year old man marrying a girl who's just reached puberty? I mean, since it's between a male and a female and all :D ?

I'm against something like that, and if you open up the definition of marriage, you open it to legal challenges where something like that would be legal.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dagobahn Eagle
Like it or not inter-racial marriage was believed to affect a lot of people, ticked a lot of people off, and was accused of being the top of a slippery slope that'd allow other horrible things such as homosexual marriage, bigamy and child marriages.

Again they were operating off of racism, as I pointed out one's skin pigmentation means nothing.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dagobahn Eagle
Oh, and you do realize that your entire argument is one big Appeal To Tradition, I hope?

So?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dagobahn Eagle
How, exactly, does this follow? Bigamy is not a violation of your 1st Amendment 14th Amendment rights, but would be if gays were allowed to marry? I'm also curious as to what on earth marriage has to do with the 1st amendment in the first place.

It's the consequence that it opens the door for 1st and 14th amendment challenges to the ban on bigamy and marrying children, because you're discriminating against a religion.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dagobahn Eagle
I'm also curious as to why bigamists can't use the slippery slope argument with other 'redefinitions of marriage' and say that since we're redefined marriage to include inter-racial marriage, then we're perfectly justified in redefining it further to allow bigamy. Oh, wait, let me guess... inter-racial marriage doesn't count because it's still between a man and a woman.

That's actually quite simple, the inter-racial marriage is a situation involving only the 14th Amendment, skin color has nothing to do with what gender someone is, nor does it have anything to do with whether or not they are people. You are comparing apples and lima beans, they are two different things.

ET Warrior 02-04-2009 11:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GarfieldJL (Post 2585073)
That had to do with people not realizing that skin-color didn't mean anything.

I must admit I find it amusing how locked into your own mindset you are. Is it so difficult to imagine a similar debate in 20 years time about who knows what where the conservative viewpoint will argue "That had to do with people not realizing that sexual orientation didn't mean anything."?

You are behaving exactly like the people whose viewpoints you are brushing aside apparently with no awareness of the irony.

SkinWalker 02-05-2009 12:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GarfieldJL (Post 2585073)
Actually it still did happen, it was taboo, but it did happen.

Miscegenation was illegal in many states until 1967 and the advent of Loving v. Virginia where the Supreme Court ruled against it. A prior Court ruling, Pace v. Alabama (106 U.S. 583) in 1883, upheld miscegenation laws, which included the prohibition of interracial marriage.

Quote:

That had to do with people not realizing that skin-color didn't mean anything.
Nor does sexual orientation "mean anything" between two people who are in love and devoted to one another.

Quote:

No, it was founded on Judea-Christian values, the founding fathers weren't atheists. The first amendment is freedom of religion, not freedom from religion.
Nor were many of the Christian. Indeed, several had a disdain for either Christianity or the attempts by Christians to impose their doctrines on the emerging nation. These people included Jefferson, Washington, John Adams, Madison, and Franklin among many others. They stood in the way of the attempts that their Christian contemporaries made to insert religious dogma and doctrine into our founding documents like the Constitution. Jefferson made the point clear that Freedom of Religion cannot exist without the Wall of Separation between Church and State in the letter he wrote to the Danbury Baptists:
Quote:

Originally Posted by Thomas Jefferson
Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State.

Many if not most of the Founding Fathers were Deists, not Christian. Some were agnostic. Several (i.e. Madison, Adams, and Franklin) may in fact have been atheist.

Dagobahn Eagle 02-05-2009 10:09 AM

Treaty of Tripoli:
http://earlyamerica.com/image/review...97/titleXI.jpg

Quote:

Quote:

Oh, and you do realize that your entire argument is one big Appeal To Tradition, I hope?
So?
So you should consider coming up with something better. It used to be tradition that voting for only for men, should that have been upheld, too?

Quote:

I'm against something like that, and if you open up the definition of marriage...
Why are you still going on about that? I've proven to you that marriage has been ever-changing since its beginning and varies greatly from culture to culture. You still go on about how it should be set in stone.

Quote:

...you open it to legal challenges where something like that would be legal.
What, exactly, do you have in mind? Marrying a terrified 12 year old or having multiple wives (or husbands, for that matter) is certainly nothing like marrying another consenting adult.

Quote:

Again they were operating off of racism, as I pointed out one's skin pigmentation means nothing.
Please demonstrate to me how sexual orientation means anything. You so far have produced appeals to tradition and a dubious slippery slope in which you predict that the conservative and traditional American people will somehow accept child marriages and bigamy just because gays can marry, something I see as, to say the least, incredibly unlikely.

Rogue Nine 02-05-2009 10:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GarfieldJL (Post 2585073)
I'm against something like that, and if you open up the definition of marriage, you open it to legal challenges where something like that would be legal.

Not really, because marrying someone of the same sex is not analogous to an adult marrying a minor.

Quote:

Originally Posted by GarfieldJL
Again they were operating off of racism, as I pointed out one's skin pigmentation means nothing.

Just like one's sexual orientation means nothing.

Quote:

Originally Posted by GarfieldJL
So?

Meaning your entire argument is fallacious and therefore, wrong.

Quote:

Originally Posted by GarfieldJL
It's the consequence that it opens the door for 1st and 14th amendment challenges to the ban on bigamy and marrying children, because you're discriminating against a religion.

I don't quite follow this line of reasoning. What religion is being discriminated against, and how?

Astor 02-05-2009 10:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GarfieldJL (Post 2585073)
It's the consequence that it opens the door for 1st and 14th amendment challenges to the ban on bigamy and marrying children, because you're discriminating against a religion.

I don't know about the bigamy thing, but even with the holy Constitution and 'freedom of expression', you have to expect common sense to kick in with things such as marrying children.


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:12 PM.

Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
LFNetwork, LLC ©2002-2011 - All rights reserved.