|
calliope
Feb 5, 2004, 8:10 PM
Post #26 of 87
(1796 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 3, 2002
Posts: 1212
|
In reply to: Would it be "gender discrimination" to define marriage and stick to the definition? The law defines many things. Actions outside the given defintion are disallowed, as I understand it.
Who needs it defined? I'm pretty comfortable with the concept as is.
|
|
|
|
|
danooguy
Feb 5, 2004, 8:15 PM
Post #27 of 87
(1796 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 31, 2002
Posts: 3659
|
Hi, Calliope.
I'm not sure what you mean. Wasn't President Bush and his crew going to attempt to clarify the legal definition of "marriage" as a man and a woman? My question was, if they did that, would it still be "gender" discrimination?
|
|
|
|
|
bumblie
Feb 5, 2004, 8:15 PM
Post #28 of 87
(1796 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 18, 2003
Posts: 7629
|
In reply to: Consider that to date zero American gays have "married," and the American family seems to be declining just fine on its own.
Is this an example of circular logic? Red Herring? Causal Assumption?
I always get them confused.
|
|
|
|
|
dookie
Feb 5, 2004, 8:29 PM
Post #29 of 87
(1796 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 25, 2003
Posts: 3528
|
not sure if it matters, but if you look up a definition of marriage you get the following:
In reply to: mar·riage n. The legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife. The state of being married; wedlock. A common-law marriage. A union between two persons having the customary but usually not the legal force of marriage: a same-sex marriage. A wedding. A close union: “the most successful marriage of beauty and blood in mainstream comics” (Lloyd Rose).
danoo, I believe you're right (gasp! ha - j/k) bush and co. I believe are trying to make the first definition above the legal definition of marriage. That way it could not be any kind of discrimination, I guess - since by definition homosexuals would not fit into the legal definition of marriage Without the man (or woman) part, marriage then is not possible legally.
|
|
|
|
|
calliope
Feb 5, 2004, 8:30 PM
Post #30 of 87
(1796 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 3, 2002
Posts: 1212
|
My question is, what benefit comes from that? It excludes part of the population and yes it would be gender discrimination. We had laws in the past that said women couldn't own property or vote. Just because something makes it onto the books doesn't make it constitutional.
|
|
|
|
|
danooguy
Feb 5, 2004, 8:44 PM
Post #32 of 87
(1796 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 31, 2002
Posts: 3659
|
Thank you, dookie. (I know you want me, you want me bad!)
As to what good comes from the providing a legal defintion...
There are many laws designed to encourage or discourage certain behaviors. That is probably the true reason...to discourage the recognition of homosexual unions as marriage. It would probably have the effect of NOT affording them benefits under many collective bargaining agreements, contracts, and social programs.
I stated previously that society has a right (in my opinion) to legislate in a fashion that promotes the greater good for the largest number of people; that homosexuals (not "fags" as another board member called them last night) cannot unite to provide the ideal "family" is beyond question.(my opinion...others have made it clear that since marriages sometimes fail, that no "traditional" family has an advantage of a union of a same sex couple that both care deeply for any children they birth or adopt.)
|
|
|
|
|
j_ung
Feb 5, 2004, 8:50 PM
Post #33 of 87
(1796 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 21, 2003
Posts: 18690
|
In reply to: In reply to: Consider that to date zero American gays have "married," and the American family seems to be declining just fine on its own. Is this an example of circular logic? Red Herring? Causal Assumption?
I don't think so. My point is that society as a whole finds things to blame for the "decline of the American family". Gay marriage seems to be the cause du jour, but to date, no American gays have actually tied knot.
Furthermore, I think that the role of the American family in society has always been in a state of near-constant change. If we look back in time to post-Civil-War America, can we make similar claims of decline based on cultural factors of the day?
|
|
|
|
|
calliope
Feb 5, 2004, 8:54 PM
Post #34 of 87
(1796 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 3, 2002
Posts: 1212
|
In reply to: I stated previously that society has a right (in my opinion) to legislate in a fashion that promotes the greater good for the largest number of people
Then you have to define greater good. I understand what you're saying, but I still don't think it would serve to do anything except delineate class system where same sex couples who wish to make the same emotional and financial commitments to one another that straight people do can't. I'm not even talking about legalizing gay marriage. I'm talking about not using the constitution to promote what is primarily a religious belief that "healty marriage" entails one between a man and a woman and cannot be one between same sex couples.
|
|
|
|
|
alwaysforward
Feb 5, 2004, 8:58 PM
Post #35 of 87
(1796 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 22, 2002
Posts: 979
|
Gah... I missed another thread.
|
|
|
|
|
dookie
Feb 5, 2004, 9:05 PM
Post #36 of 87
(1796 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 25, 2003
Posts: 3528
|
In reply to: Thank you, dookie. (I know you want me, you want me bad!)
hehe! especially after I saw what you wrote to me in the virginity thread ;) :lol:
|
|
|
|
|
pornstarr
Feb 5, 2004, 9:23 PM
Post #37 of 87
(1796 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 25, 2002
Posts: 824
|
this thread is gay :lol:
|
|
|
|
|
danooguy
Feb 5, 2004, 10:24 PM
Post #38 of 87
(1796 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 31, 2002
Posts: 3659
|
In reply to: I'm not even talking about legalizing gay marriage. I'm talking about not using the constitution to promote what is primarily a religious belief that "healty marriage" entails one between a man and a woman and cannot be one between same sex couples. _________________
I've posted all this before, but I find it interesting to discuss so here goes...
Since the beginning of time, children have needed a father and a mother. It is the way children have been born and the way they have been raised. Social groups have promoted this by creating the concept of a permanent bond for those that have born children...marriage. The idea of "benefits" being provided in the form of legal agreements and other breaks is to encourage families to form and stay together. It seems pretty clear to me that the biggest benefit to homosexuals that marry is the acquisition of those benefit packages, along with the acknowledgment of society that they are a "unit."
For example, the payment of social security benefits earned by a spouse after the wage-earner dies...homosexuals would be granted those benefits if they are granted "marriage" privileges.
|
|
|
|
|
calliope
Feb 5, 2004, 10:33 PM
Post #39 of 87
(1796 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 3, 2002
Posts: 1212
|
At the risk of sounding like Bumblie, what's your point?
Gay people pay taxes. Why shouldn't they have survivorship benefits?
Also, as I believe someone else pointed out, not all men and women who marry procreate. So if we're going to base marriage on biological ability to procreate, that invalidates those who either can't or don't want to have children.
|
|
|
|
|
danooguy
Feb 5, 2004, 10:41 PM
Post #40 of 87
(1796 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 31, 2002
Posts: 3659
|
In reply to: Why shouldn't they have survivorship benefits? Also, as I believe someone else pointed out, not all men and women who marry procreate. So if we're going to base marriage on biological ability to procreate, that invalidates those who either can't or don't want to have children.
I never said they should not have survivorship benefits. I am pointing out that for thousands of years, society has promoted ONLY traditional marriages and that homosexuals are primarily interested in those benefits even though homosexual unions do not represent that which is and has been promoted for good reason.
It is because homosexual unions do not typically promote the health and well being of children (in a traditional family unit, momma, poppa, kid) that they have never been rewarded with said benefits in the past. In my opinion, that is why many people do not want them to be awarded the status and benefits of that status now.
|
|
|
|
|
calliope
Feb 5, 2004, 10:47 PM
Post #41 of 87
(1796 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 3, 2002
Posts: 1212
|
[quote="danooguy]
It is because homosexual unions do not typically promote the health and well being of children (in a traditional family unit, momma, poppa, kid) that they have never been rewarded with said benefits in the past. In my opinion, that is why many people do not want them to be awarded the status and benefits of that status now.
Wow. I certainly hope that's not the case. Is there a correlation between homosexuality and the ability to love and provide a good home for children?
|
|
|
|
|
danooguy
Feb 5, 2004, 11:13 PM
Post #42 of 87
(1796 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 31, 2002
Posts: 3659
|
In reply to: I certainly hope that's not the case. Is there a correlation between homosexuality and the ability to love and provide a good home for children? _________________
Your question rests at the foundation of the entire controversy.
I do know that there is definitely a correlation between a child having both a father figure and a mother figure.
|
|
|
|
|
calliope
Feb 5, 2004, 11:28 PM
Post #43 of 87
(1796 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 3, 2002
Posts: 1212
|
Perhaps, but I feel we're no longer talking about marriage, but the traditional family unit.
And while marriages did and do result in procrecreation, it is neither a prerequesite nor a guarantee. There are a vast number of people who live in families with only one parent due to a number of reasons. Homosexual or single parent adoptions being only two of them. People die. They get divorced. The divorce rate is close to 50%. 50% of children do not grow up to be homicidal maniacs, so if there is a correlation, it's not a very high one.
|
|
|
|
|
danooguy
Feb 5, 2004, 11:34 PM
Post #44 of 87
(1796 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 31, 2002
Posts: 3659
|
In reply to: The divorce rate is close to 50%. 50% of children do not grow up to be homicidal maniacs, so if there is a correlation, it's not a very high one.
The divorce rate is a relatively recent trend. That 50% of the kids do not grow up with overt problems does not mean that they would not have shown any meaningful advantage by having been raised in a two parent traditional family environment.
Marriage and the traditional family unit are inseparable issues.
|
|
|
|
|
kagunkie
Feb 5, 2004, 11:39 PM
Post #45 of 87
(1796 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 14, 2000
Posts: 731
|
Now Iv heard everything. SHEESH!
Personally I dont care what people do to stimulate their genitals, but do we really need to hear about it? This is just another step in the systematic assault on morality and the AMERICAN WAY OF LIFE. I say let these degenerates stay in the da--n closet where they belong and out of the light of day. Let them crawl back into the sewers they came from. Just my humble opinion.
|
|
|
|
|
kagunkie
Feb 5, 2004, 11:41 PM
Post #46 of 87
(1796 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 14, 2000
Posts: 731
|
I personally hope they all get aids and die before they can infect anyone els with their vile festering secretions. Leave it to the MASSHOLES to come up with some freak loving crap like this. Im just posting for points now.
|
|
|
|
|
kagunkie
Feb 5, 2004, 11:50 PM
Post #47 of 87
(1796 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 14, 2000
Posts: 731
|
One time a gay guy touched my rope right after he relieved himself :oops:
I threw it away. :P
|
|
|
|
|
calliope
Feb 5, 2004, 11:51 PM
Post #48 of 87
(1796 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 3, 2002
Posts: 1212
|
In reply to: Marriage and the traditional family unit are inseparable issues.
So then should we have a constitutional ammendment that says only married couples comprised of a man and a woman can adopt children?
That widows with children must immediately re-marry in order to provide the children with another father?
That unmarried women must find someone to marry before their child is born?
I'm not saying that there's anything wrong with the traditional family unit, but it's not always a possibility and providing the sanctity of the traditional family unit as a reason for denying a segment of the population equality just doesn't wash with me.
I appreciate your indulging me in this little debate, but I think we've hit the brick wall.
:wink:
|
|
|
|
|
danooguy
Feb 6, 2004, 12:22 AM
Post #49 of 87
(1796 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 31, 2002
Posts: 3659
|
First the idea of who can adopt and who can bear children is not the question. I am not saying that single parents are failures, that homosexuals should not adopt, or that children of single parents cannot succeed.
Look at the definition of marriage posted by dookie earlier. It is the "traditional" marriage, that lends itself best to child rearing and thus, the "traditional family."
It is because of the definition itself that I say they are inseparable. Furthermore, it is the definition of marriage that homosexuals want to change. Thus the idea of "traditional families" is being pressured toward redefinition also.
In reply to: So then should we have a constitutional ammendment that says only married couples comprised of a man and a woman can adopt children?
The question should be more like, "Should we encourage by the granting of status ("marriage") and benefits of government and business (soc sec benefits etc) the adoption of children by same sex couples."
If the answer is yes, I would ask, "Why?"
|
|
|
|
|
climbhigh2005
Feb 6, 2004, 12:30 AM
Post #50 of 87
(1796 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 14, 2003
Posts: 1500
|
I have no problem with it
|
|
|
|
|
|
