Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 52 (9179 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: Jorge Parker
Post Volume: Total: 918,169 Year: 5,426/9,624 Month: 451/323 Week: 91/204 Day: 7/26 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Marriage is a civil right in the US
Yaro
Member (Idle past 6606 days)
Posts: 1797
Joined: 07-12-2003


Message 179 of 304 (317903)
06-05-2006 10:24 AM
Reply to: Message 173 by New Cat's Eye
06-05-2006 10:08 AM


Because I think its gonna make things worse.
I'm sorry CS, but your whole argument is bogus. For multiple reasons:
1) People can get married for whatever damn reason they please. Till this day, marriges are performed for financial, social, and political reasons all the time. A few people doing the same thing with gay marriage is not gonna be anythig new, nor will it signal the end of the world.
2) 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.
3) This is actually based on real events, a male couple did get married for financial and medical benifits! They were 70+ years old and had no family left. They were bothe very poor and wanted to make sure there was someone around to look after them. They were friends, but the marriage was purely out of convenience. After all, the NEED healthcare and next of kin as a matter of survival.
So essentially, your argument is moot. Who cares what peoples reasons are for entering a contract, the real question is what's the reason for keeping the contract sex exclusive?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 173 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-05-2006 10:08 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 184 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-05-2006 10:43 AM Yaro has replied

Yaro
Member (Idle past 6606 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

Yaro
Member (Idle past 6606 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

Yaro
Member (Idle past 6606 days)
Posts: 1797
Joined: 07-12-2003


Message 240 of 304 (318120)
06-05-2006 8:04 PM


A recap
So basically, so far, the folks for gay marriage have the following in their favor:
-Facts
-Research
-Evidence
And the anti-gay marriage group has:
-Intuition
-A hankering for the good'ol days that never existed
-An old book
-And an 'iky' feeling about the whole debate
Who's the winner? You decide!
PS:
Some random arguments that pop into my head while reading this debate. The constitution was written with rich, white, male, land-owners in mind. Shouldn't we interpret everything by this guideline?
After all, it's all this mushy liberal thinking that says social mores should advance along with the times. All our laws should be written through the original goggles the founders war.
Rights are for white men, who own land, and are wealthy. What's wrong with this? I mean, certainly there are plenty of right-wingers who fall into this category
As to the questions of which societies had gay marriage as an institution. Try, Sparta! And ancient Greece in general.
Pederasty and homosexuality were considered healthy and natural. In fact, male/female relationships were considered only useful for social reasons and procreation. Even the women were encouraged to have female lovers.
In any case, I think so far the 'anti' people are looking pretty silly. Keep it coming, I'm laughing off my chair
Edited by Yaro, : spelling

Replies to this message:
 Message 255 by SuperNintendo Chalmers, posted 06-05-2006 11:27 PM Yaro has not replied

Yaro
Member (Idle past 6606 days)
Posts: 1797
Joined: 07-12-2003


Message 244 of 304 (318127)
06-05-2006 8:33 PM
Reply to: Message 243 by Faith
06-05-2006 8:28 PM


Re: It's coming out, finally, isn't it faith?
If men need protection from each other, that would mean nongay men too, so let's have all single men partner up with each other to get health insurance benefits and all the other percs of marriage that gays complain they don't get.
Faith, your argument is so silly, it's laughable. You have presented no reason for gays NOT to recieve the same benifits. The fact is, the only support you have offered for your agument essentially boils down to: "Just cuz.", "I don't like it.", and "it's yucky."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 243 by Faith, posted 06-05-2006 8:28 PM Faith has not replied

Yaro
Member (Idle past 6606 days)
Posts: 1797
Joined: 07-12-2003


Message 284 of 304 (318650)
06-07-2006 8:52 AM
Reply to: Message 281 by ThingsChange
06-07-2006 7:56 AM


Re: Gay marriage represents "anything goes"
I get Faith's logic, and I agree with her assessment on decline of society.
History has shown that people "pull together" and succeed better as a nation when the population has a key set of values for the population. For example, ethnic and religious conflict (i.e. set of values of a population) frequently boil over into violence and degradation.
Gay marriage is clearly unpopular with the population, and I believe most people recognize that the practice and openness of homosexuality promotes the destruction of a core set of values and traditions that represents the masses' unity and goals for their kids to look up to.
It is not just this issue that is tearing this country apart. It is just another cog in a destructive wheel churning against values of the majority.
What kind of paranoid BS is this?
What do you think society is? Where did you get this nutball idea that any society, let alone OUR society, has ever been anything but a seething cauldron of discord and conflicting agendas?
Can you name a date when things were better than today?
When was the day there was no war, or that america was as perfect as apple pie, cuz I certainly can't point to one. Society has allways been crumbling in the eyes of those from previous generations essentially because society is not a stable entety. It's an ever changing thing and that's good, that's how a society survives.
Seriously dude, give some thouught to what you are saying.
Edited by Yaro, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 281 by ThingsChange, posted 06-07-2006 7:56 AM ThingsChange has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 286 by iano, posted 06-07-2006 9:20 AM Yaro has replied

Yaro
Member (Idle past 6606 days)
Posts: 1797
Joined: 07-12-2003


Message 290 of 304 (318679)
06-07-2006 9:55 AM
Reply to: Message 286 by iano
06-07-2006 9:20 AM


Re: Gay marriage represents "anything goes"
There are seething cauldrons of discord and conflict and there are seething cauldrons of discord and conflict. Whilst a person might despair at the seething cauldron that society has made for itself, they are trying to resist those who want to pull society over the brim and into the fire. As is their right.
Ever consider that your views might be held as nutball by others?
The problem, iano, is theat your position is begging the question. Where is the impending fire?
Seriously.
People with your possition have existed trughout history, and indeed, thrughout American history. They claim that some big social change is a highway to calimity.
I would really love it if someone threw out a date, ya know, a month and year, where society wasn't (suposedly) on the verge of destruction by some sort of moral degeneration or other.
Can you show me such a date?
Edited by Yaro, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 286 by iano, posted 06-07-2006 9:20 AM iano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 291 by Jazzns, posted 06-07-2006 10:19 AM Yaro has replied
 Message 298 by iano, posted 06-07-2006 11:37 AM Yaro has replied

Yaro
Member (Idle past 6606 days)
Posts: 1797
Joined: 07-12-2003


Message 292 of 304 (318692)
06-07-2006 10:26 AM
Reply to: Message 291 by Jazzns
06-07-2006 10:19 AM


Re: Gay marriage represents "anything goes"
Careful Yaro. Remember to a fundamentalist Christian the world is in a CONTINUAL decline up until the end times. The only difference between the ones of old and now is that they lean on that history of "decline" to come to the conclusion that the end times are even closer.
See, Jazzns, that's just the thing. They can't make a case for a sort of 'cumilative' decline, because I can name specific societies, cultures, and time periods that were obviously worse than what we have today!
I can name time periods in OUR history that were more 'depraved', and hostile to the population, than any description of modern day america. So the point is moot.
If anything, it illsutrates an 'up and down' motion and not a steady decline.
ABE: Personaly, I feel things are getting better and not getting worse. I tend to be optamistic about the fate of humanity.
Edited by Yaro, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 291 by Jazzns, posted 06-07-2006 10:19 AM Jazzns has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 295 by Jazzns, posted 06-07-2006 10:41 AM Yaro has not replied

Yaro
Member (Idle past 6606 days)
Posts: 1797
Joined: 07-12-2003


Message 301 of 304 (318750)
06-07-2006 12:40 PM
Reply to: Message 298 by iano
06-07-2006 11:37 AM


Re: Gay marriage represents "anything goes"
The problem, iano, is that your position is begging the question. Where is the impending fire?
No more so than asserting gay marriage as moral (or perhaps civil rights) progress is begging the question. The question is, is it a good thing or a bad thing. I say it leads down a slope to moral depravity. You think it leads upwards towards something.
BZZT! You ar poseting unsubstantiated fear as a basis for discriminating a large group of people. 3% of the population to be precice.
We have already established that your fears are contrary to objective data gathered about the nature of homosexuality, as well as the practical concerns about gays in family/child rearing sittuations. To put it simply, your position has no foundation.
I could simply say it's ok to discriminate against blacks because "You know how THEY are." or "It will lead to mass chaos!". See the similarity? Both of those statements are based on unsubstantiated fear, bigotry, and prejudice.
In this case, it is not a matter of opinion, it is a matter of reality versus imagination.
It is a subjective thing and we are both entitled to our view on what we consider a) moral depravity to be and b) whether gay marriage leads to that.
It is not subjective. You have made a posative assertion that gay marriage will lead to certain effects. Yet, all emperical data shows that you are compleatly wrong about your beliefs.
These things aren't decisions about what flavor of chocolate you like better, this has to do with the disenfranchisment of about 3% of the US population. Your position is invalidated by data iano.
You are wrong.
You might agree with some of your fellow proponants of gay marriage that there is no more reason to legislate against this than there is to legislate against mothers marrying sons or people having numerous wives and husbands. If you do not see that as a 'bad' thing then I cannot help that - my subjective standard as to 'moral fibre of society' differs from yours
Straw man, and red herring. No one is proposing people marrying their sons. You do know that similar arguments where made when the laws forbiding interacial marriage were torn down?
People called the blacks 'beasts' and suggested that allowing interacial marrige would lead to people marrying livestock. Hasn't happened yet, has it?
Are people marrying dogs in Canada where gay marriage has been legal for several years now?
Your fears are so far divorced from reality it's laughable.
Its not a question of there never having existed opportunties for moral destruction. At times these opportunities are taken and times not. At times societies utterly destroy themselves (think Roman or 3rd Reich Germany) in their depravity. And they recover and start the cycle all over again.
Incorrect. Neither Rome, nore Nazi Germany were brought down as a direct result of moral depravity. Morals do not dictate the rise or decline of a cultural/national/military power structure. Morals however do affect the quality of life for the people within those structures.
As a tangible example, both modern europe, and the USA have the distinction of being built on the backs of slaves. Not to mention the horrible indian genocide wich is essentially why we even have this great land of ours, or indeed, europe has it's vast reserves of colonial wealth.
The question has nothing to do with the destruction of society. The question is simply:
"Is there a tangible, objective reason, we should discriminate against 3% of the human population?"
And the answer, as evidenced by the lack of objective support for your position, is resoundingly no.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 298 by iano, posted 06-07-2006 11:37 AM iano 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