Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 52 (9179 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: Jorge Parker
Post Volume: Total: 918,168 Year: 5,425/9,624 Month: 450/323 Week: 90/204 Day: 6/26 Hour: 1/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Marriage is a civil right in the US
ohnhai
Member (Idle past 5272 days)
Posts: 649
From: Melbourne, Australia
Joined: 11-17-2004


Message 60 of 304 (317522)
06-04-2006 7:32 AM
Reply to: Message 48 by Faith
06-04-2006 4:51 AM


Re: Two things, Miss Faith, if you please.
Faith writes:
Heterosexuality is the qualification, whether or not fecundity is possible. The union of heterosexuals has always been the point of marriage, and since procreation is ONLY possible to heterosexuality heterosexuality stands for it, and ONLY heterosexuality qualifies for marriage whether or not actual procreative ability or intention is present. This is intuitively obvious to anyone with common sense.
'The only qualification? What about religious beliefs? Should atheists be allowed to get married? After all your claim against same sex marriages seems to be that these people are doing things contrary to the bible’s teachings, so by the same token should you not bar Atheists, People of other faiths, thieves, murderers, adulterers, witches . (and so the list goes on) from marriage?
The point is if you are defending the holy union of matrimony against those who go against the bibles teachings why stop at with the Gays?
If you have no problem with Marriage for atheists, thieves, murderers, adulterers . and so on, then you have no argument against homosexuals other than bigotry. After all you even say:
Faith writes:
...whether or not actual procreative ability or intention is present.
So if by your own admission, reproductive ability or urge has nothing to do with marriage, then why heterosexuality the only qualification? If reproductive ability is removed as a requirement for marriage then it isn’t intuitively obvious (with or without common sense) why marriage should be limited to one ”man and one woman’.
Would you have a problem with two transsexuals (post-op) of opposite sex getting married? To spell that one out for you. If Barry became Cathy and Jill became Jack, would you object to Cathy and Jack getting married? What if Cathy met Tom and got married would you object? What if Jack met Sandy, would you object to marriage?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by Faith, posted 06-04-2006 4:51 AM Faith has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 109 by ohnhai, posted 06-04-2006 9:21 PM ohnhai has replied

ohnhai
Member (Idle past 5272 days)
Posts: 649
From: Melbourne, Australia
Joined: 11-17-2004


Message 109 of 304 (317735)
06-04-2006 9:21 PM
Reply to: Message 60 by ohnhai
06-04-2006 7:32 AM


Faith: please respond.
esspecially to the last paragraph.

Faith writes:
Heterosexuality is the qualification, whether or not fecundity is possible. The union of heterosexuals has always been the point of marriage, and since procreation is ONLY possible to heterosexuality heterosexuality stands for it, and ONLY heterosexuality qualifies for marriage whether or not actual procreative ability or intention is present. This is intuitively obvious to anyone with common sense.
'The only qualification? What about religious beliefs? Should atheists be allowed to get married? After all your claim against same sex marriages seems to be that these people are doing things contrary to the bible’s teachings, so by the same token should you not bar Atheists, People of other faiths, thieves, murderers, adulterers, witches . (and so the list goes on) from marriage?
The point is if you are defending the holy union of matrimony against those who go against the bibles teachings why stop at with the Gays?
If you have no problem with Marriage for atheists, thieves, murderers, adulterers . and so on, then you have no argument against homosexuals other than bigotry. After all you even say:
Faith writes:
...whether or not actual procreative ability or intention is present.
So if by your own admission, reproductive ability or urge has nothing to do with marriage, then why heterosexuality the only qualification? If reproductive ability is removed as a requirement for marriage then it isn’t intuitively obvious (with or without common sense) why marriage should be limited to one ”man and one woman’.
Would you have a problem with two transsexuals (post-op) of opposite sex getting married? To spell that one out for you. If Barry became Cathy and Jill became Jack, would you object to Cathy and Jack getting married? What if Cathy met Tom and got married would you object? What if Jack met Sandy, would you object to marriage?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by ohnhai, posted 06-04-2006 7:32 AM ohnhai has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 175 by ohnhai, posted 06-05-2006 10:16 AM ohnhai has replied

ohnhai
Member (Idle past 5272 days)
Posts: 649
From: Melbourne, Australia
Joined: 11-17-2004


Message 113 of 304 (317743)
06-04-2006 9:58 PM
Reply to: Message 110 by Rob
06-04-2006 9:40 PM


Re: Two things, Miss Faith, if you please.
Rob writes:
Sexuality invloves reproduction regardles of the organism.
Wrong.
Answers.com writes:
sex”u”al”i”ty (sk'sh-‘l'-t) pronunciation
n.
  • The condition of being characterized and distinguished by sex.
  • Concern with or interest in sexual activity.
  • Sexual character or potency.
Nowhere in there is reproduction mentioned. It is all to do with what sex you are, your interest and drive in getting all hot and sweaty, and your personal leanings. Actual successful reproduction is not a part of that. (though is often the result, between fertile couples)
Your argument harks back to the ”reproduction is the reason for marriage’ argument, that even Faith has stepped away from. And if Faith has given up on any particular argument then you know it’s got to be unsound.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 110 by Rob, posted 06-04-2006 9:40 PM Rob has not replied

ohnhai
Member (Idle past 5272 days)
Posts: 649
From: Melbourne, Australia
Joined: 11-17-2004


Message 152 of 304 (317839)
06-05-2006 7:49 AM
Reply to: Message 151 by Faith
06-05-2006 7:43 AM


Re: It's coming out, finally, isn't it faith?
Faith writes:
So does the common practice of unmarried couples living together and the complete disregard of any requirement to be married before indulging in sex.
So now you object to two people who love each other NOT being married.. Nice one.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 151 by Faith, posted 06-05-2006 7:43 AM Faith has not replied

ohnhai
Member (Idle past 5272 days)
Posts: 649
From: Melbourne, Australia
Joined: 11-17-2004


Message 169 of 304 (317890)
06-05-2006 10:03 AM
Reply to: Message 166 by New Cat's Eye
06-05-2006 9:55 AM


Why line up for all that hatred and intolerance that gets directed at gays just for small financial gain? Easier to marry a like minded woman and get a few free shags into the bargain .
Anyway as has been pointed out there have been scam marriages since time immemorial, purely in the hetero realm, so this is not a strong argument against same sex unions.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 166 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-05-2006 9:55 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 176 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-05-2006 10:17 AM ohnhai has replied

ohnhai
Member (Idle past 5272 days)
Posts: 649
From: Melbourne, Australia
Joined: 11-17-2004


Message 175 of 304 (317898)
06-05-2006 10:16 AM
Reply to: Message 109 by ohnhai
06-04-2006 9:21 PM


Any Takers at all?
Ok, as Faith is decidedly not interested in aswering this, anyone on the "No To Gay Marriage" team care to have a crack?

Would you have a problem with two transsexuals (post-op) of opposite sex getting married? To spell that one out for you. If Barry became Cathy and Jill became Jack, would you object to Cathy and Jack getting married? What if Cathy met Tom and got married would you object? What if Jack met Sandy, would you object to marriage?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 109 by ohnhai, posted 06-04-2006 9:21 PM ohnhai has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 194 by arachnophilia, posted 06-05-2006 12:46 PM ohnhai has not replied
 Message 254 by ohnhai, posted 06-05-2006 10:35 PM ohnhai has not replied

ohnhai
Member (Idle past 5272 days)
Posts: 649
From: Melbourne, Australia
Joined: 11-17-2004


Message 180 of 304 (317904)
06-05-2006 10:28 AM
Reply to: Message 176 by New Cat's Eye
06-05-2006 10:17 AM


CS writes:
Thats why I think we should call them something other than marriages.
So equal in all but name? Isn’t that like when the European Union tried to force UK chocolate makers to change the name of their product to ”Vegelate’ as it wasn’t really ”chocolate’ at all ( No, Really!)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 176 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-05-2006 10:17 AM New Cat's Eye has not replied

ohnhai
Member (Idle past 5272 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

ohnhai
Member (Idle past 5272 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

ohnhai
Member (Idle past 5272 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

ohnhai
Member (Idle past 5272 days)
Posts: 649
From: Melbourne, Australia
Joined: 11-17-2004


Message 254 of 304 (318163)
06-05-2006 10:35 PM
Reply to: Message 175 by ohnhai
06-05-2006 10:16 AM


Re: Any Takers at all?
Faith: Why the reluctance to answer this question?

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

ohnhai
Member (Idle past 5272 days)
Posts: 649
From: Melbourne, Australia
Joined: 11-17-2004


Message 263 of 304 (318564)
06-07-2006 1:37 AM
Reply to: Message 262 by Faith
06-07-2006 12:02 AM


Re: Please change subtitles
And we'd apreciate some answers......

This message is a reply to:
 Message 262 by Faith, posted 06-07-2006 12:02 AM Faith has not replied

ohnhai
Member (Idle past 5272 days)
Posts: 649
From: Melbourne, Australia
Joined: 11-17-2004


Message 279 of 304 (318615)
06-07-2006 7:25 AM
Reply to: Message 267 by Faith
06-07-2006 2:17 AM


Re: Please change subtitles
You may feel you have answered the other questions resolutly but my direct question regarding the tansexuals that get married most cirtainly has not.
I would be interested in your views.
to re-state. (again)

Would you have a problem with two transsexuals (post-op) of opposite sex getting married? To spell that one out for you. If Barry became Cathy and Jill became Jack, would you object to Cathy and Jack getting married? What if Cathy met Tom and got married would you object? What if Jack met Sandy, would you object to marriage?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 267 by Faith, posted 06-07-2006 2:17 AM Faith has not replied

ohnhai
Member (Idle past 5272 days)
Posts: 649
From: Melbourne, Australia
Joined: 11-17-2004


Message 283 of 304 (318647)
06-07-2006 8:49 AM
Reply to: Message 282 by watzimagiga
06-07-2006 7:58 AM


Re: Marriage for all?
Hi ya watzmagiga.
watzmagiga writes:
But has it been mentioned that marriage is a Christian tradition.
Sure has.
But think on this. If marriage is a 'Christian tradition' (and I assume by that you mean ”only a Christian tradition’) then why does virtually every other religion, society and culture have marriage tradition? More over, if marriage WAS a Christian thing in and of itself, that does leave you with the little problem of explaining why the Romans, Greeks, Jews and Egyptians (to name but a few) practice marriage centuries before the birth of Christ ? Simple. Marriage has been practiced by humans for millennia. Way before Jesus was even a twinkle in his daddy’s eye.
There have been many definitions of marriage through centuries and ”heterosexual monogamy’ has been but one (and not an exclusively Christian one at that). It is ridiculous for Christianity to lay claim to the sole rights to heterosexual monogamy, let alone “marriage”.
It could even be argued that heterosexual monogamy was actually invented in the animal kingdom first, many species follow observable monogamous relationships.
It plainly absurd that one group of humans would, could or should force their interpretation of the universal concept of a monogamous relationship on any other group.
In short if same sex couples want to define their monogamous relationships as marriage then there is no reason for them not to, save for the exclusionist discrimination of a group who mistakenly believes it alone has the right to define what marriage is.
Oh and PS.. Homosexuals no more 'Choose to be gay' than you chose to be straight, male or a Kiwi.
PPS: Whoot ! Post 500 this is

This message is a reply to:
 Message 282 by watzimagiga, posted 06-07-2006 7:58 AM watzimagiga has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 288 by watzimagiga, posted 06-07-2006 9:42 AM ohnhai has replied

ohnhai
Member (Idle past 5272 days)
Posts: 649
From: Melbourne, Australia
Joined: 11-17-2004


Message 287 of 304 (318674)
06-07-2006 9:35 AM
Reply to: Message 285 by Faith
06-07-2006 9:00 AM


Re: Things Change and watzimagiga
faith writes:
...and always it unites male and female.
No Faith.
Not always.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 285 by Faith, posted 06-07-2006 9:00 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 289 by Faith, posted 06-07-2006 9:45 AM ohnhai has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024