American Way

[Gawain of Orkeny]

I thought it was liscensed by God and the Church - not the stat?

Is it god or the church that give her half your property when you divorce?

[Redleg]

I thought it was liscensed by God and the Church - not the stat?

In the United States marriage is legislated by each individual state's politicial system, a whole set of laws are based on the concept of marriage. It is licensed by the state because it is a contract between two consenting individuals who meet the standards set by the state through their elected representives.

When the popular will of the people demand a legislative change on what the society wants to accept as a state sanctioned marriaged then it will happen.

Kind of what has just happened in Canada.

The Canadian Marriage law was changed through the legislative process - just like the people wanted based upon who they elected into office to represent them.

[Sjakihata]

In denmark 'she' does not get half of my property - althought, sadly, she probably will get the children.

anyway, my point is - that I do not think gay people have the same rights, if they cannot marry whom they love. And yes, I believe marriage should be a right, since economics etc becomes so much easier. If right is not the proper term, then advantage or favor etc, I dont care what it's called, im not arguing semantics.

[PanzerJaeger]

"Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness, unless you are gay, in which case you should be ashamed of your filthy, abnormal self and stay in the closet where you belong if you don't have the decency to suppress your sexual identity and marry and have kids while making both you and your spouse miserable because of your burning repressed sexuality."

I have no desire to burn gay people at the stake, they are free to make any lifestyle choice they want. However, when they organize and force themselves on to the public and politcial stage and demand that their alternative lifestyle be legally mandated and accepted by the rest of us; well that goes far beyond the American Dream.

[Goofball]

If right is not the proper term, then advantage or favor etc, I dont care what it's called, im not arguing semantics.

Then you will not be able to discuss this issue with conservatives, because they have no choice but to take refuge in semantics when it comes to denying gays the (right/privilege/ability/whatever) to marry. It's the only way they can sell themselves on the idea that they are not being discriminatory.

"But gays are allowed to marry somebody of the opposite sex just like everybody else blah, blah, blah..."

Balls.

[Redleg]

In denmark 'she' does not get half of my property - althought, sadly, she probably will get the children.

anyway, my point is - that I do not think gay people have the same rights, if they cannot marry whom they love. And yes, I believe marriage should be a right, since economics etc becomes so much easier. If right is not the proper term, then advantage or favor etc, I dont care what it's called, im not arguing semantics.

Ah but the arguement concerning same-sex marriage is about semantics. The state sanctioned marriage is contract that the state gives certain priveledges to if you meet the legislative defined conditons.

A minority of the population (society) is attempting to force what they want legislated onto the majority without going through the legislative process. So in essence those who wish to force same-sex marriage onto society without going through the legislative process are violating my right to voice my opinion about what direction my country should follow.

Marriage as defined by the legislative process and recognized by the state is a social contract between two individuals who meet the conditions as established by the state. These conditions were established based upon not only pre-established guidelines normally associated in the United States - under the concept of the English Common Law - but through for the United States over 200 years of the legislative process either through a common majority vote - or most common through the state legislative process for each of state.

When same-sex marriage goes through the legislative process in the United States verus the courts then I will at least listen to their reasons around how that social contract benefits society as a whole. If the arguement has a compealing (SP) reasoning about how my society will benefit from such a contract - then I will vote for or encourage my representive to vote for such a change in the law.

But love is an emotion - not a right. So defining marriage as a social contract by the state between a man and a woman is not violating anyone's rights.

[Redleg]

Then you will not be able to discuss this issue with conservatives, because they have no choice but to take refuge in semantics when it comes to denying gays the (right/privilege/ability/whatever) to marry. It's the only way they can sell themselves on the idea that they are not being discriminatory.

"But gays are allowed to marry somebody of the opposite sex just like everybody else blah, blah, blah..."

Balls.

There you go again with that same old arguement, and calling those who oppose your position as being discriminatory - or shall we get the word out now on what you have called me in the past on this particular issue.


Again show me exactly how not allowing same sex marriage is discrimination. What conditions of discrimination are being met? What rights are being violated or denied?

You have never adequately gone past the emotional appeal form of arguement concerning this issue - and always resort to throwing such accusations and comments around.

Marriage is a social contract - which the society should be able to determine how it wants marriage to be defined.

[Goofball]

Then you will not be able to discuss this issue with conservatives, because they have no choice but to take refuge in semantics when it comes to denying gays the (right/privilege/ability/whatever) to marry. It's the only way they can sell themselves on the idea that they are not being discriminatory.

"But gays are allowed to marry somebody of the opposite sex just like everybody else blah, blah, blah..."

Balls.

There you go again with that same old arguement, and calling those who oppose your position as being discriminatory - or shall we get the word out now on what you have called me in the past on this particular issue.


Again show me exactly how not allowing same sex marriage is discrimination. What conditions of discrimination are being met? What rights are being violated or denied?

As I predicted you are ignoring the fact that you favor denying gays the right (or ability/privilege/indulgence/whatever) to a basic happiness extended to all other Americans and taking refuge in semantics to make yourself feel better about it.

Sorry if that is blunt Red, but it's the truth.

[Redleg]

As I predicted you are ignoring the fact that you favor denying gays the right (or ability/privilege/indulgence/whatever) to a basic happiness extended to all other Americans and taking refuge in semantics to make yourself feel better about it.

Sorry if that is blunt Red, but it's the truth.

And in this you are incorrect - I want those who advocate same-sex marriage to demonstrate and present factual evidence that same-sex marriage is a benefit to society. When that is done - then my opinion on the subject will change. That is not a position of someone who is closed minded on the subject. And its a position of lots of Americans who would possiblily vote to allow same-sex marriage if the advocates of that postion would explain and demonstrate how it benefits society at large.

I can care less what one individual does to another consenting individual - however when it comes to the legislative process it needs to be done by the majority consent of the society. The only time it should not be done by majority consent is when the law violates an individual's rights. Which has yet to be shown by those who advocate same sex marriage.



Instead of answering the question about how is it discrimination - you charge that I am ignoring the fact. That Goofball is doublespeak, and shows how closed minded you are on the subject - you might want to look at the defination of the term you onced attempted to incorrectly apply to me concerning this subject.

Once again how is having those who advocate same-sex marriage go through the legislative process to change the law discriminatory?

How is the state dening same-sex marriage discriminatory?

[Watchman]

Uh - is there some particular reason why same-sex marriages should be "a benefit to society" ? I really don't think this is a cost/benefit sort of question, you know.

[Redleg]

Uh - is there some particular reason why same-sex marriages should be "a benefit to society" ? I really don't think this is a cost/benefit sort of question, you know.

The state concept of marriage is based upon the cost/benefit to society. Marriage in the eyes of the state is a society issue, not an individual.

If it was not a benefit or a cost to society - there would be no laws regarding marriage.

[Watchman]

Why ?

[Redleg]

Why ?

Well lets see why is marriage a societial issue? A good question - and the simple answer is all laws are societial issues be it theft, murder, jaywalking, the wearing of seat belts, etc... If one wants the state to recongize it and regulate it - then it is a society issue.


http://www.intams.org/conference/seminar03.html

This one is interesting because it stress both view points

The role of marriage in society is the topic of intense discussion today. Some argue that marriage is the foundational building block of society. Others argue that marriage is a social institution that has served its time and is no more than a stumbling block on the way to human fulfilment.
On the one hand, it is claimed that an exclusive emphasis on marriage is detrimental to social growth. Today, the recognition of the equal dignity of women and men, the growing acceptance of different forms of relationship, and longer lifespans make traditional, life-long marriage increasingly obsolete. Some say that continued emphasis on marriage by society serves only to foster gender inequality, discriminate against other forms of cohabitation, and trap people in relationships long exhausted of vitality.
On the other hand, marriage is held up by many as the key to social progress. It provides a stable environment where social virtues may be cultivated. Further, recent sociological research has emphasized that married people live better lives than those who are not married: they are healthier, happier, live longer, and are more financially stable. Because of these benefits, it is argued that society should privilege marriage as the preferred way of life, offering legal protection for the institution, as well as tax benefits and other social rewards.
The Christian position is not immediately clear. While the churches emphasize the value of marriage, there is at the same time an ancient hesitation in esteeming marriage too highly. Theologians today look beyond the individual ethical questions and seek rather to address the social dimension of intimate relationships.
The fundamental question in this debate is whether and in what way marriage enhances society. The course will take up this question from a variety of perspectives: the historical development of marriage, its role as a social institution, its economic implications, the spiritual dimensions of its interaction with society, and its theological meaning. It seeks to understand the relationship between marriage and contemporary society and the implications involved in either privileging marriage or relativizing it.

[Ice]

I have no desire to burn gay people at the stake, they are free to make any lifestyle choice they want. However, when they organize and force themselves on to the public and politcial stage and demand that their alternative lifestyle be legally mandated and accepted by the rest of us; well that goes far beyond the American Dream.

Agreed, completely.

[King of Atlantis]

Agreed, completely.

I agree completely too!

Im not a consevative(well i guess all americans are), but i dont see why gay marriage should be a right. What are they being denied. If i wanted to marry my dog i could, but the state just wouldnt reconize it. That doesnt mean that it would affect my "marriage". Now you could say dog "lovers" are being denied the right of other americans, but i would just have to disagree.

And back to panzers comment.....
It really makes me mad when gays try to make a gay rally out of something. Like at the St. Patricks day parade in new york, the gays try to make it into a gay protest, and then they get mad when they are kicked out ! They fail to realize that there arnt any straight rallies either as that is not the purpose of the parade.

[bmolsson]

To sue or to be sued.... That is the Amercian way.....

[King of Atlantis]

To sue or to be sued.... That is the Amercian way.....

Actually many americans are tired of all the stupid lawsuits(republicans and democrats), unfortunatly stupid people can make a lot of money by suing so they continue to do it...

[PanzerJaeger]

It really makes me mad when gays try to make a gay rally out of something. Like at the St. Patricks day parade in new york, the gays try to make it into a gay protest, and then they get mad when they are kicked out ! They fail to realize that there arnt any straight rallies either as that is not the purpose of the parade.

Exactly.

You know most americans, even myself, dont really care how they live their lives. What we dont like is when they organize and try to force their lifestyle on us.

Im sorry but I dont want to have to wait for a gay pride parade to pass so I can get to the bank. (true story) Why is in necessary to celebrate the fact that your different than everyone else?

Ive made a lot of lifestyle choices over the years. Ive never once felt I needed to go out and stop traffic to force those choices on everyone else.

Gays have made their lifestyle choice an issue, not the other way around.

It always amazes me that they act so indignant and outraged when people tell them they are going to hell or whatever. They have publicized, politicized, and generally forced their lifestyle to become an issue in this country. Naturally when youre so vocal about it, there will be people who are against it.

[Proletariat]

nm.

[King of Atlantis]

I didnt really think he was being serious, i was actually hoping that this argument could get out of the gay rights thing as many other threads seem to be going into it.

Hey you edited your post.

[Ser Clegane]

Newsflash:
There is a thread that seems much better suited for a gay rights discussion (although, for some reason in that thread the discussion went OT into another direction ... go figure )

Please continue your discussion on gay rights there, and try to stick to Franconicus' original question here

Thanks for your cooperation

[Franconicus]

Thanks for your posts, especially for the definition.
I still have no idea what it means in reality and why it is so important. But I understood that it is related to gays, even though I do not understand how.
Another question: Why does every threat start these antiamerican comments?

You, my friend, are a glutton for punishment.

What are you saying?

[Watchman]

Another question: Why does every threat start these antiamerican comments?

Well, duh. Because the "American Way" to do things, or at least the variation thereof we get to see, doesn't tend to draw unconditional applause. More like sarcastic remarks.

[Franconicus]

Well, duh. Because the "American Way" to do things, or at least the variation thereof we get to see, doesn't tend to draw unconditional applause. More like sarcastic remarks.

First of all: All I wanted was a description what it was, not good or bad.
The American way refers to an American nationalist ethos which purports to adhere to principles of "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." It has some connections to the concept of American exceptionalism.
If this is the definition (and I cannot see any other def. in this thread) you can be critical about a national ethos, but life, liberty and persuit of happiness seem to me not too bad at all. More like common values, not even very American.

[Husar]

Why is in necessary to celebrate the fact that your different than everyone else?

If you have a bad conscious about your lifestyle and you somehow feel it´s wrong, you try a lot of things to prove to yourself it´s not wrong, that includes getting other people to agree with you.

[Watchman]

First of all: All I wanted was a description what it was, not good or bad.
The American way refers to an American nationalist ethos which purports to adhere to principles of "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." It has some connections to the concept of American exceptionalism.
If this is the definition (and I cannot see any other def. in this thread) you can be critical about a national ethos, but life, liberty and persuit of happiness seem to me not too bad at all. More like common values, not even very American.

*shrug* I wasn't really referring to the concept as explicitly discussed in this thread, but more as a vague undercurrent sort of concept. Although going by your definition, a major source of the acute lack of positive impression would be the distance between the purported ideal and how it is then carried out in practice - such as the record number of prison inmates per capita as found in the country...

Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness I've nothing against; quite on the contrary, so far as I'm concerned they're something everyone in the world should have as equal as possible chance for.

[Redleg]

*shrug* I wasn't really referring to the concept as explicitly discussed in this thread, but more as a vague undercurrent sort of concept. Although going by your definition, a major source of the acute lack of positive impression would be the distance between the purported ideal and how it is then carried out in practice - such as the record number of prison inmates per capita as found in the country...

Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness I've nothing against; quite on the contrary, so far as I'm concerned they're something everyone in the world should have as equal as possible chance for.

The question is relative and the answer in the defination is relative.

The problem you are facing Watchman is that you are trying to define a concept from an outside perpective based upon what your own internal baised views. The question was not about what the world should have - But what defines the American Way. That is a national ethos not an international one.

This definition while not complex does fit what most Americans feel is the American Way - The American way refers to an American nationalist ethos which purports to adhere to principles of "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." It has some connections to the concept of American exceptionalism. Does it mean that the United States as a nation is perfect? The definition does not even allude to such a philisophy - it is a general ethos statement that fits the concept as well as any other statement on the concept that I have seen.


Here is a website of the organization geared toward protecting the concept of the American Way.

http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/general/default.aspx?oid=163

[Franconicus]

Redleg,
just looked at the link. Thanks. American Way has something to do with Civil Rights as well? Or is it just that org. view.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Redleg,
just looked at the link. Thanks. American Way has something to do with Civil Rights as well? Or is it just that org. view.

Whats the matter you didnt like it when I posted it?

Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny
When? Blasphemy!!!!!!!!!

Hey theve even got an orginzation of people.


People For the American Way

I provided the same link there.

[Franconicus]

Whats the matter you didnt like it when I posted it?



I provided the same link there.

Sorry! I was just busy!