Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 52 (9179 total)
2 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: 2/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Marriage is a civil right in the US
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 124 of 304 (317765)
06-05-2006 12:23 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by nator
06-03-2006 1:09 PM


...the claim that, at least in the US, marriage was a privilage rather than a right.
After a little research, I found that this was an unfounded claim, at least according to the United States Supreme Court.
I agree that marriage is a right, not a privilege.
In a discussion of civil rights and gay marriage in another thread
/nod
If this thread is only about whether or not marriage is a right or privilege, then allow me to be off topic.
The excerpts you quoted are all about race and men, can we substitute gay or women in there?
This is a good example of the problem I have with gay marriages. When the laws, or statutes etc, including marriage were written, they didn’t have gay marriages in mind. Some of them, like your quotes exemplify, didn’t even have race (or women) in mind.
This, I believe, was solved by including race and women in to the laws, or statutes etc.
Now, we have more laws, or statutes etc, and the gay group that wants to be included. Should we just include them into the laws, or statutes etc, like we did with race and women?
I’d say no.
I think we should do it different. Some new word for gay marriages that can be added to the laws, or statutes etc, where its needed and then other adjustments can be made that need to be.
I find it plausible that guys will have fake marriages for health insurance or other benefits.
These issues need to be dealt with before gay marriages are included (for prevention) not afterwards when they are exploited. I think that just including gay marriages as marriages opens the laws, or statutes etc, up for exploitation because gay marriages weren’t in mind when they were written. For race and women it worked fine, but for gay I think it’s different because with the way the insurance is now, I’d marry a guy so we’d both have cheaper health insurance.
Sounds familiar to Faith's and others' arguments; it isn't "natural", God never meant for marriage to be like that, etc.
This, for me, has nothing to do with religion.
quote:
the laws, or statutes etc
There's gotta be a better way to type this.
Also, I only read the OP of this thread so excuse me if I’ve missed anything.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by nator, posted 06-03-2006 1:09 PM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 141 by Belfry, posted 06-05-2006 6:04 AM New Cat's Eye has replied
 Message 158 by nator, posted 06-05-2006 8:50 AM New Cat's Eye has replied
 Message 159 by SuperNintendo Chalmers, posted 06-05-2006 8:50 AM New Cat's Eye has replied
 Message 162 by nator, posted 06-05-2006 9:05 AM New Cat's Eye has not replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 166 of 304 (317885)
06-05-2006 9:55 AM
Reply to: Message 141 by Belfry
06-05-2006 6:04 AM


Catholic Scientist writes:
I find it plausible that guys will have fake marriages for health insurance or other benefits.
How is this any different (or any more likely) than different-sex people who currently marry for the same sort of reason?
I don't know exactly how it is different but for me, I'd marry a guy for benefits and I wouldn't a girl. Why?, I haven't really put my finger on it yet but prolly something to do with it being easier to get a long with guys and the lack of the possibility of a sexual relationship.
I think its more likely because I wouldn't do it with a girl but I'd do it with a guy. Wow, that sounded really gay. I hope I don't get miss quoted on that one!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 141 by Belfry, posted 06-05-2006 6:04 AM Belfry has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 168 by nator, posted 06-05-2006 10:02 AM New Cat's Eye has replied
 Message 169 by ohnhai, posted 06-05-2006 10:03 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 167 of 304 (317886)
06-05-2006 9:57 AM
Reply to: Message 158 by nator
06-05-2006 8:50 AM


quote:
The excerpts you quoted are all about race and men, can we substitute gay or women in there?
Incorrect.
The excerpts were about race and man.
...as in "mankind", not "males".
so one wrong word and the whole rest of the post isn't worth replying too?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 158 by nator, posted 06-05-2006 8:50 AM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 171 by nator, posted 06-05-2006 10:04 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 170 of 304 (317891)
06-05-2006 10:03 AM
Reply to: Message 159 by SuperNintendo Chalmers
06-05-2006 8:50 AM


Re: Come one
I find it plausible that guys will have fake marriages for health insurance or other benefits.
Dude, this is a red herring, just like it was the first time you brought it up. You are making up things to be worried about
Well, like I typed, I find it plausible. Mr. Jack said he's seen it happen. Simply dismissing the whole argument by calling one line a fallacy seems like a waste of time to me. I'm not interested in discussing whether or not its a fallacy so if thats all you have to say then whatever.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 159 by SuperNintendo Chalmers, posted 06-05-2006 8:50 AM SuperNintendo Chalmers has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 174 by SuperNintendo Chalmers, posted 06-05-2006 10:13 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 173 of 304 (317895)
06-05-2006 10:08 AM
Reply to: Message 168 by nator
06-05-2006 10:02 AM


Well, at any rate, how can you justify denying marriage to homosexuals because our healtcare system is so crappy?
Because I think its gonna make things worse.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 168 by nator, posted 06-05-2006 10:02 AM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 179 by Yaro, posted 06-05-2006 10:24 AM New Cat's Eye has replied
 Message 197 by nator, posted 06-05-2006 1:08 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 176 of 304 (317899)
06-05-2006 10:17 AM
Reply to: Message 169 by ohnhai
06-05-2006 10:03 AM


Why line up for all that hatred and intolerance that gets directed at gays just for small financial gain?
If it was worth it.
Easier to marry a like minded woman and get a few free shags into the bargain .
I think it'd be easier with a male friend. I don't really care about a few free shags.
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.
Sure it happens in hetero marriages. I know a guy from England who was proposing to all kinds of girls 'cause his visa was unning out, or something. I just think that including gay marriages as marriages is gonna make it a lot more frequent and for exploitng different benefits. I don't think they should have nothing, as in no unions at all, I just don't think we should lump them into the already defined marriages that are affected by laws-n-stuff that did't have gay marriages in mind when they were written. Thats why I think we should call them something other than marriages.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 169 by ohnhai, posted 06-05-2006 10:03 AM ohnhai has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 180 by ohnhai, posted 06-05-2006 10:28 AM New Cat's Eye has not replied
 Message 198 by nator, posted 06-05-2006 1:10 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 177 of 304 (317901)
06-05-2006 10:19 AM
Reply to: Message 171 by nator
06-05-2006 10:04 AM


Well, since half of your point (iirc) depended upon the idea that they meant "male" when they actually meant "human", it's not really one wrong word, is it?
You remember incorrectly.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 171 by nator, posted 06-05-2006 10:04 AM nator has not replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 178 of 304 (317902)
06-05-2006 10:22 AM
Reply to: Message 174 by SuperNintendo Chalmers
06-05-2006 10:13 AM


Re: Come one
We shouldn't let straight people get married because it might encourage men and women to engage in false marriages to get medical benefits.
Are you just being a smartass?
You're just wasting thread space.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 174 by SuperNintendo Chalmers, posted 06-05-2006 10:13 AM SuperNintendo Chalmers has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 181 by SuperNintendo Chalmers, posted 06-05-2006 10:29 AM New Cat's Eye has replied
 Message 182 by ohnhai, posted 06-05-2006 10:39 AM New Cat's Eye has 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

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

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

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

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 199 of 304 (317955)
06-05-2006 1:12 PM
Reply to: Message 196 by arachnophilia
06-05-2006 12:57 PM


Re: Come one
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.
then perhaps it is you, and others that would do something similar, that are really making a mockery of marriage.
Yes, it is because of this potential for mockery that I don't support gay marriage as it is being pushed.
but two consenting adults who really want to enter into a state-sanctioned and binding contract expressing their love and commitment for each other are not.
Yup, which is why I'm not actively against gay marriages. I think they should have some kind of marriage, I just don't like they way its going down.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 196 by arachnophilia, posted 06-05-2006 12:57 PM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 201 by arachnophilia, posted 06-05-2006 1:15 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied
 Message 210 by Damouse, posted 06-05-2006 5:28 PM New Cat's Eye 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