Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Marriage is a civil right in the US
SuperNintendo Chalmers
Member (Idle past 5833 days)
Posts: 772
From: Bartlett, IL, USA
Joined: 12-27-2005


Message 181 of 304 (317906)
06-05-2006 10:29 AM
Reply to: Message 178 by New Cat's Eye
06-05-2006 10:22 AM


Re: Come one
Are you just being a smartass?
You're just wasting thread space.
No, I'm pointing out how utterly stupid and ridiculous your argument is.
You're a smart dude for the most part, but this "fear" of people abusing same sex marriages is just ridiculous.
You are making the claim that gay marriages would be abused with no evidence other than that's how you feel about it.
And finally, why the hell is it your business to tell people what are valid reasons for getting married?
I'll defer the rest of my argument to Yaro's excellent post #179

This message is a reply to:
 Message 178 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-05-2006 10:22 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 185 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-05-2006 10:46 AM SuperNintendo Chalmers has not replied

ohnhai
Member (Idle past 5161 days)
Posts: 649
From: Melbourne, Australia
Joined: 11-17-2004


Message 182 of 304 (317909)
06-05-2006 10:39 AM
Reply to: Message 178 by New Cat's Eye
06-05-2006 10:22 AM


Re: Come one
CS writes:
Are you just being a smartass?
You're just wasting thread space.
Actually No, SNC is right. By your arguments, to deny marriage to those who would potantialy abuse it for personal gain, you would have to shut the whole thing down and deny it to one and all. To limit this 'potential fraud' preventative to couples of the same sex (purely because it was a same sex relationship) is out-right discrimination.
Edited by ohnhai, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 178 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-05-2006 10:22 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 183 by Yaro, posted 06-05-2006 10:42 AM ohnhai has not replied
 Message 187 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-05-2006 10:54 AM ohnhai has replied

Yaro
Member (Idle past 6495 days)
Posts: 1797
Joined: 07-12-2003


Message 183 of 304 (317910)
06-05-2006 10:42 AM
Reply to: Message 182 by ohnhai
06-05-2006 10:39 AM


Re: Come one
Actually No, SNC is right. By your arguments, to deny marriage to those who would potantialy abuse it for personal gain, you would have to shut the whole thing down and deny it to one and all. To limit this 'potential fraud' preventative to couples of the same sex (purely because it was a same sex relationship) is out-right discrimination.
Kinda like the old 'blacks' and 'whites' waterfountain signs. I'm sure the rational wen't a little like this "If we let the blacks and whites drink out of the same fountain, the blacks might spit in it or something. I mean, you know how THEY are."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 182 by ohnhai, posted 06-05-2006 10:39 AM ohnhai has not replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 184 of 304 (317911)
06-05-2006 10:43 AM
Reply to: Message 179 by Yaro
06-05-2006 10:24 AM


People can get married for whatever damn reason they please.
I disagree. We have laws that limit some marriages.
A marriage contract comes with responsibilities, liabilities, involved. Severing a buissiness partnership can be messy enough, but imagine divorce in such a sittuation? Marriage is not a free ride.
A lot of people say this but a good enough pre-nup could solve any issues that would come up when the fake marriage is terminated.
This is actually based on real events
I don't see how that makes my argument bogus, but anyways its not important.
So essentially, your argument is moot.
I'm not convinced.
the real question is what's the reason for keeping the contract sex exclusive?
Because when many of the laws that were written concerning marriages, they had a sex exclusive marriage in mind. And as Schraf exemplified, some of them had race exclusive marriage in mind. Now, simply including all races into marriages solved the problem. I think simply including gay into marriages will make it worse. It only my opinion and my reason for not supporting gay marriage. I'm not fighting to stop them from getting married, I'm just not fighting to include it.
The only problem I really had was when Jar said that if you don't fight FOR it then your a hateful bigot. I'm not fighting FOR it, for the reasons I've given, and I'm not a hateful bigot. If you think my reasons are moot then whatever. If you want to try to convince me to fight for them then I'll listen, and possible change my mind. I'm not really trying to convince you that gay marriage should be stopped, I just don't think the way its going about is the best way to do it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 179 by Yaro, posted 06-05-2006 10:24 AM Yaro has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 186 by Yaro, posted 06-05-2006 10:49 AM New Cat's Eye has replied
 Message 200 by nator, posted 06-05-2006 1:15 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 185 of 304 (317914)
06-05-2006 10:46 AM
Reply to: Message 181 by SuperNintendo Chalmers
06-05-2006 10:29 AM


Re: Come one
You're a smart dude for the most part, but this "fear" of people abusing same sex marriages is just ridiculous.
Its not fear and I don't think its ridiculous. I think its plausible and worth avoiding.
You are making the claim that gay marriages would be abused with no evidence other than that's how you feel about it.
Yes, in my opinion gay marriages would be abused. I find that a valid reason for not supporting the idea of including gay into the already defined marriage. Its not like I'm fighting against it, I'm just don't agree with the way they're going about it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 181 by SuperNintendo Chalmers, posted 06-05-2006 10:29 AM SuperNintendo Chalmers has not replied

Yaro
Member (Idle past 6495 days)
Posts: 1797
Joined: 07-12-2003


Message 186 of 304 (317915)
06-05-2006 10:49 AM
Reply to: Message 184 by New Cat's Eye
06-05-2006 10:43 AM


A marriage contract comes with responsibilities, liabilities, involved. Severing a buissiness partnership can be messy enough, but imagine divorce in such a sittuation? Marriage is not a free ride.
A lot of people say this but a good enough pre-nup could solve any issues that would come up when the fake marriage is terminated.
LOL! Do you realize the puddle you just steped in?
If pre-nups are ok, then you killed your whole point. I mean, seriusly, the whole idea of a pre-nup is that marriage is a contract with certain clauses needing to be met by the concenting parties.
It's a contract! So what's so special about men and women? Cant a gay couple sign prenups too that state that the contract is only binding for medical purposes and that neither party is entitled to monetary gain should the partnership disolve?
That sounds like a good pre-nup to me...
What's your point dude? You just threw it out the window.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 184 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-05-2006 10:43 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 190 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-05-2006 11:19 AM Yaro has not replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 187 of 304 (317918)
06-05-2006 10:54 AM
Reply to: Message 182 by ohnhai
06-05-2006 10:39 AM


Re: Come one
By your arguments, to deny marriage to those who would potantialy abuse it for personal gain, you would have to shut the whole thing down and deny it to one and all.
How's that?
I was saying that we should call it something else and then include it into the laws as needed rather than include it into all the laws and remove it from or change the ones that get exploited.
I realise the possibility that nothing bad is gonna happen and there won't be fake marriages screwing anything up and then I'd be totally wrong. Thats fine, I'm not doing anything wrong by not supporting gay marriages becuase I think its a bad idea to lump it in with marriages.
To limit this 'potential fraud' preventative to couples of the same sex (purely because it was a same sex relationship) is out-right discrimination.
Well, I don't want to limit it purely because its same sex relationships so I maintain that I'm not a hateful bigot, nor discriminatory.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 182 by ohnhai, posted 06-05-2006 10:39 AM ohnhai has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 188 by ohnhai, posted 06-05-2006 10:59 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

ohnhai
Member (Idle past 5161 days)
Posts: 649
From: Melbourne, Australia
Joined: 11-17-2004


Message 188 of 304 (317920)
06-05-2006 10:59 AM
Reply to: Message 187 by New Cat's Eye
06-05-2006 10:54 AM


Re: Come one
CS writes:
I was saying that we should call it something else and then include it into the laws as needed rather than include it into all the laws and remove it from or change the ones that get exploited.
isnt that the same as saying while it's ok for the Heteros to rip the system off with dubious marriages it's not ok for the Homos?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 187 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-05-2006 10:54 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 189 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-05-2006 11:16 AM ohnhai has replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 189 of 304 (317924)
06-05-2006 11:16 AM
Reply to: Message 188 by ohnhai
06-05-2006 10:59 AM


Re: Come one
CS writes:
I was saying that we should call it something else and then include it into the laws as needed rather than include it into all the laws and remove it from or change the ones that get exploited.
isnt that the same as saying while it's ok for the Heteros to rip the system off with dubious marriages it's not ok for the Homos?
I don't think the system can be perfect. I don't see heteros ripping it off that much but when it happens I don't think its ok. I don't have a solution for those problems. I think including gay in marriages opens the system up for more ripping off. Ripping off that I, personally, would be more inclined to do (the health care thing). This inclination is most likely the source of my opposition to gay marriage. I never considered marrying a girl purely for health care benefits. It wasn't until after all this gay marriage hype that I thought about marrying a guy purely for health care benefits. If I'm thinking of ways that this will allow me to rip off the system, then there are a lot of other people thinking up a lot of other ways to rip it off. I think we should try to prevent the system from getting ripped off not open it up for it. I don't think we should deny gay people rights, I just don't agree with the way its going down by simply including gay into marriage.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 188 by ohnhai, posted 06-05-2006 10:59 AM ohnhai has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 191 by ohnhai, posted 06-05-2006 11:29 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 190 of 304 (317925)
06-05-2006 11:19 AM
Reply to: Message 186 by Yaro
06-05-2006 10:49 AM


LOL! Do you realize the puddle you just steped in?
nope.
I'm sure my position isn't flawless and if you're going to be throwing puddles out in front of it then I'll prolly step in a few.
What's your point dude? You just threw it out the window.
I tried to summarize it in Message 189.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 186 by Yaro, posted 06-05-2006 10:49 AM Yaro has not replied

ohnhai
Member (Idle past 5161 days)
Posts: 649
From: Melbourne, Australia
Joined: 11-17-2004


Message 191 of 304 (317926)
06-05-2006 11:29 AM
Reply to: Message 189 by New Cat's Eye
06-05-2006 11:16 AM


Re: Come one
It's still a poor argument.
I don't see heteros ripping it off that much...
If Heteros dont use marriage to defraud on any great scale (your observations) why do you think is would be more of an issue with same sex unions?
On a side note. the vast majority of the conversation and argument has been against male/male pairings. are lesbian unions less of an issue?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 189 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-05-2006 11:16 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 192 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-05-2006 11:37 AM ohnhai has not replied
 Message 195 by arachnophilia, posted 06-05-2006 12:55 PM ohnhai has not replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 192 of 304 (317928)
06-05-2006 11:37 AM
Reply to: Message 191 by ohnhai
06-05-2006 11:29 AM


Re: Come one
It's still a poor argument.
Yes but still an argument. I originally brought it up because Jar said that the only reasons for not supporting gay marriages were from hate and bigotry. I can accept that its not a good argument. It mostly comes from personal opinion, which I consider a valid reason for not supporting something.
If Heteros dont use marriage to defraud on any great scale (your observations) why do you think is would be more of an issue with same sex unions?
Because of my personal feelings that I'd be more inclined to enter a fake marriage with a guy than with a girl and that I think there are other people that are like me.
On a side note. the vast majority of the conversation and argument has been against male/male pairings. are lesbian unions less of an issue?
No.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 191 by ohnhai, posted 06-05-2006 11:29 AM ohnhai has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 196 by arachnophilia, posted 06-05-2006 12:57 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1343 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 193 of 304 (317944)
06-05-2006 12:44 PM
Reply to: Message 172 by Dr Jack
06-05-2006 10:04 AM


Re: Come one
I think it's utterly no reason at all. It does, however, happen so dimissing it as fantasy is false.
well, yeah -- but the point is that it's not a situation unique to gay marriage or even caused by gay marriage at all. the "mockery" exists already.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 172 by Dr Jack, posted 06-05-2006 10:04 AM Dr Jack has not replied

arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1343 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 194 of 304 (317946)
06-05-2006 12:46 PM
Reply to: Message 175 by ohnhai
06-05-2006 10:16 AM


Re: Any Takers at all?
Ok, as Faith is decidedly not interested in aswering this,
i have a few questions i'd like answered, as well. i'm sure faith feels she's already answered, but i'm not satisfied that specifics have been given to explain how exactly gay marriage is a threat to normal marriage, what objective harm it would do, and how exactly it will end marriage (and society) as we know it.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 175 by ohnhai, posted 06-05-2006 10:16 AM ohnhai has not replied

arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1343 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 195 of 304 (317947)
06-05-2006 12:55 PM
Reply to: Message 191 by ohnhai
06-05-2006 11:29 AM


Re: Come one
On a side note. the vast majority of the conversation and argument has been against male/male pairings. are lesbian unions less of an issue?
"i only support gay marriage if both chicks are hot."
t-shirt hell.
aside from the moderately amusing fact that society likes lesbians, or at least the fake kind, the religious objection is mostly against two men. while leviticus says that men laying with men is an abomination, it makes no such mention of women. though as someone is bound to point out, one of paul's epistles makes a statement or two that includes women as well.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 191 by ohnhai, posted 06-05-2006 11:29 AM ohnhai has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024