He's afraid of Black people. That's why he won't openly support it.Quote:
Originally Posted by ICantSpellDawg
Printable View
He's afraid of Black people. That's why he won't openly support it.Quote:
Originally Posted by ICantSpellDawg
A. Who cares what marriage has been historically. It's a part of government benefit distribution. It is subject to change just as any other part of government is. Appeal to tradition is dumb.
B. The fact that there are other views besides the Judeo-Christian living in the US means that enforcing the mainstream christian view of marriage on others is religious intolerance.
Religion should stick to social welfare or get out of my country, because I want the government out of my life.
What a joke. Where do you get your morality from? If you say "it comes from within" with a straight face I will start laughing and might not be able to stop.Quote:
Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name
People are not entitled to recognition from others. If individuals would like to make the case that end of life visiting rules are draconian or that tax benefits for married people unfairly impact others, i will listen and may be inclined to agree, but saying that a gay relationship is the same as a marriage is a joke and it becomes more absurd the harder you push it.
Me too.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro
Well, I think it's more a matter of micromanagement. Should we test heterosexual couples to make sure they're fertile before they can marry? Should we allow a homosexual couple to marry if one of the two will have a biological child? What if a sterile couple adopts? Can they then marry? Can they marry ahead of time? I'm sure it seemed rather simpler to just say man and woman, assuming that such a couple can generally conceive.Quote:
Our marriage law and conception of marriage is pretty silly in that regard. But I don't see what the anti-gay marriage people have against people who adopt, or who use a sperm donor. PVC, exactly how different do you think that lesbian couple that you mentioned is from a man/woman couple? Why is it especially important that babies are created in the natural way that come from both parents? It would still be wrong for one of the mothers to ditch the other one and leave her to raise her kid herself wouldn't it?
Really, I think all of this is a sideshow. Why is it relevant what culture x did in year y? Certainly in the US, state marriage has been defined as a union between one man and one woman. Some people want to change that. That's what the whole debate is about. It's not about love, it's not about rights.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sarmatian
Will my life or marriage change significantly if marriage laws are changed? No, not really. But that in itself isn't a reason to become a pro-gay marriage activist.
Ha, yet you believe in global warmingQuote:
Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name
LOL UMAD?You are such a ******* disgusting man. "I'M SICK OF THESE DEGENERATES ACTING LIKE THEY ARE THE SAME AS US!"Btw, I am sorry that your dear leader lost at the Second Battle of Hoover Dam. True to Ceasar!Quote:
Originally Posted by ICantSpellDawg
I don't understand how giving two consenting adults the same benefits and authority as two other adults will irrevociably harm society.
If you want to keep the word marraige implicitly relgious I have no problem with changing the name to union.
I also don't understand the child arguement. Plenty of people have children whom should not. The fact that a man and woman can procreate does not mean they should. I don't think you should get benefits soley based on being able to perfrom a biological function
It's people like you whom give Christians a bad name. Your faith comes from a dark place in your soul. I am willing to chalk that up to you being a papist, beholden to your king in Rome, with all his pomp.Quote:
What a joke. Where do you get your morality from? If you say "it comes from within" with a straight face I will start laughing and might not be able to stop.People are not entitled to recognition from others. If individuals would like to make the case that end of life visiting rules are draconian or that tax benefits for married people unfairly impact others, i will listen and may be inclined to agree, but saying that a gay relationship is the same as a marriage is a joke and it becomes more absurd the harder you push it.
Or you could just be a depressed ass.
Plenty of posters have come out against this rationaly. You on the other hand continue you to try to merge your nhilism with your catholicism claiming the latter validates the former.
Redicule is normal did you know thatQuote:
Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name
That's not true, most of the arguments made in favor of gay marriage are terrible. Sometimes I think the gay marriage argument to most people is just a kind of test case, a chance to push for or against some broader change in society. It would explain why people are happy saying such nonsense about it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Strike For The South
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro
I meant against the pervailing opinion in the thread, which was a pro stance.
I am inclined to agree with the civil union in leiu of calling it gay marrige. Not that I personally care what we call it in legalese but I feel like taking the word marrige out would expidite things. I can not, in good concious give prefertiential benefits to two people becuase they can create a child. Compared to another couple who can not. But can still adopt and have a similar positive impact on society.
Not the child rearing is sole reason for a partnership but if we consider citizens to be the smallest unit of the state and families are responible for raising that unit I think the gov't has a vested interest in such things....or something like that.
The church most certainly does not have to perform a ceremony or even recognize the validity of thing but the government should
*shudder* Spelling.Quote:
Originally Posted by Strike For The South
Yes you can, when you realize that society would not exist for long without people who can create children. There should be limits to those benefits but I think it works out for everyone.
No. Isn't it clear that I am a video game playing hermit? How would I know about such things?Also, before you ask, I think Mr. House was the best choice.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
y do u h8 me?Quote:
Originally Posted by Vladimir
Well of course society would cease if people stopped having children. But the point here is people get these benifits regardless of wether they have children or not. I hate to use and oft repreated arguement but by this logic a sterile straight couple should be stripped of the marrige benefits and those whom wish to remain childless should be put on a clock.
So whose idea was it to put a lot of rights into marriage that got none to very little to do with children?Quote:
Originally Posted by Vladimir
I imagine they got there a lot of different ways. Usually an assembly of people (mostly men) draft laws and regulations regarding such things.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ironside
Oh, and no H8. Nothing but manly platonic love.
Thank you for reminding me why I voted against this crap.Quote:
Originally Posted by ICantSpellDawg
It doesn't take a great deal of looking to find balanced, sane arguments in favor of allowing gay marriage.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro
Indeed, if the contra position were so logical, and the pro position so inane, why were the supporters of Prop 8 so epically unable to marshal arguments in favor of their ban? Why did they score endless own-goals when they actually had to produce something?
"Your honor, you don't have to have evidence for this. … You only need to go back to your chambers and pull down any dictionary or book that defines marriage," Cooper told the judge. "You won't find it had anything to do with homosexuality."
This defense satisfied almost no one. Ted Olson, the plaintiff’s attorney, was absolutely flummoxed by Cooper’s claim that he had no burden to do anything beside assert the immutability of traditional marriage. In his closing argument, a perplexed Olson replied, “You can't take away the rights of tens of thousands of persons and come in here and say 'I don't know' and 'I don't have to prove anything.' ”
Children is one aspect, but one would still need to regulate the relationship between the adults. Like who gets to pull the plug, for example.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro
And of course, there is no way to restrict babies to a lesbian, all we can do is decide whether to make it pleasant or force her to have a one-night stand with a male. As for gay men, quite a few come out of the closet after they've had children, and so they will have to care for children in their gay relationship.
Edit: also, epic lol @ the "morality can't exist without god"-argument above. Made my day, honest!
If the relevant issue in the marriage debate is the ability to procreate and not religious tradition, shouldn't the fact that gay couples can now have children through various means be reason enough to extend the institution to such couples? If you do not want to micromanage fertility, then ability alone must be the deciding factor.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xiahou
FWIW, the last time NC amended their constitution re. marriage, it took the better part of a century to change.
https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v...nstitution.jpg
Repealed in 1971. Let's hope the latest won't take quite that long.
North Carolina sounds like a very pleasant place to live.
Edit: and the math teacher in me is curious about how the Lemur calculated "94 years"..
This is the same state that elected Jesse HelmsQuote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
Who?Quote:
Originally Posted by Strike For The South
My bad, should have been 96, depending on the months, which are not recorded in an easy-to-find location. So somewhere in the 95—96 range. Can we just say "the better part of a century" and leave it at that?Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
Haha, most certainly!Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
Now THAT's good research.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
I think marriage should be taken out of the law then people can do whatever they please. Then "marriage" should simple be a union contract agreed upon by both parties, whatever their gender might be.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesse_HelmsQuote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
He was a real class act, read the list of what he did. The 16 hour fillibuster to avoid recognizing MLK Jr is one of my favorites.
For the record, NC is a very nice place to live, depending on where you are. It's actually got a lot of displaced northerners around where I live, so it doesn't feel like the south, which it technically is. It's also not too far north where you're getting into the capital heartlands and the cost of living goes through the damn roof, but you have to get past the redneck hell that is Virginia first.
These are terribleQuote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sasaki
...
If we aren't going to test heterosexuals for fertility for simplicities sake, as Xiahou suggests, then it makes no sense to have a...what would it be, an "adoption attitude test"?...for homosexuals. We should just not concern ourselves with the fact that people are going to get married who aren't going to have kids, and that people are going to get married and divorced a year later...not concern ourselves legally anyway, as a society we should stop talking up marriage as such an ultimate ceremony of love. The religious right should go back to attacking hollywood and celebrity culture.Quote:
Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger