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: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Marriage is a civil right in the US
iano
Member (Idle past 2051 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 17 of 304 (317286)
06-03-2006 5:27 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by gearkat
06-03-2006 4:53 PM


When a dad marries his daughter who gives away the bride?
Welcome to the pit Gearkat...
Mothers marrying sons? Nieces marrying Uncles? Brothers wedding sisters? How does this fit in with your understanding of the constitution?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by gearkat, posted 06-03-2006 4:53 PM gearkat has not replied

iano
Member (Idle past 2051 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 21 of 304 (317310)
06-03-2006 6:17 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by Damouse
06-03-2006 6:07 PM


Freedom is freedom.
Care to elaborate Damouse. A word which is defined by the word it is trying to define kind of makes my head hurt.
How soon will it be before Gays protest and people like you come in fire trucks to put them doen with an iron fist?
I'm not all that familiar with the American constitution. Does it say anything specific about mothers marrying sons and other such things. If not should that be permissible too?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Damouse, posted 06-03-2006 6:07 PM Damouse has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by Damouse, posted 06-03-2006 6:20 PM iano has replied

iano
Member (Idle past 2051 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 23 of 304 (317316)
06-03-2006 6:31 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by Damouse
06-03-2006 6:20 PM


Re: Laws
Could you define freedom with words that don't use the word freedom. We can all say this and that is not to be interpreted but it tends to short ciruit discussion. I could say "Gays cannot be married and that is not to be interpreted". But I wouldn't say that
The constitution is supposed to be a general list. for that, you'd have to look at laws. Incidentally, you cannot marry anything closer then a 3rd cousin. It's called incest, and yes, it is punishable by law.
Yeah, but if the the law says that gays cannot marry and that law can be changed then why not mothers and sons marrying after changing those laws too?
And if there is no law against gays marrying then whats all the fuss about. Why don't they just go ahead an get married?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Damouse, posted 06-03-2006 6:20 PM Damouse has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by Damouse, posted 06-03-2006 6:42 PM iano has replied
 Message 54 by nator, posted 06-04-2006 7:14 AM iano has not replied

iano
Member (Idle past 2051 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 25 of 304 (317341)
06-03-2006 7:42 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by Damouse
06-03-2006 6:42 PM


Re: Laws
the DOI defines freedom as "[the privlage] to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness"
You said earlier that Freedom was Freedom and "no buts". Patently there are buts. A person can be denied the privilege of liberty by the 'but' of a law broken. Or did you mean no buts in another sense?
Yes, if the law is changed then wives can marry their children. And yes, the gays ARE going and getting married. I think Massachusettes is one of the states that allow it, but don't quote me on that.
Okay. So while Faith is attempting to go backwards you want it to go forwards. Mothers who want to marry their sons could follow the same route you might pose gays follow (civil rights perhaps?). May I presume brothers and sisters and nieces and nephews marrying are okay too. Fair enough. Now on a little further. Is there any reason why the laws forbidding bigamy should not be changed and if not should there be any limit to the amount of wives or husbands (of whatever sex) a person may have?
Edited by iano, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Damouse, posted 06-03-2006 6:42 PM Damouse has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by Damouse, posted 06-03-2006 7:54 PM iano has not replied
 Message 28 by DrJones*, posted 06-03-2006 8:01 PM iano has not replied
 Message 29 by jar, posted 06-03-2006 8:07 PM iano has not replied

iano
Member (Idle past 2051 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 63 of 304 (317534)
06-04-2006 8:27 AM
Reply to: Message 62 by nator
06-04-2006 7:38 AM


Re: It's coming out, finally, isn't it faith?
You oppose gay marriage because you believe homosexuality to be "sick", "abnormal", and "an abberation". It has nothing to do with "common sense" and everything to do with religious prejudice and bigotry.
I have lived for reasonable period of time in three european countries: Holland, England and Ireland. All before I was a Christian (except Ireland where I live now). All these countries are largely secular and have been for some years. In all of these countries and in varying degrees, homosexuality was viewed as something abnormal. Perhaps not amongst the limited culture amongst which homosexual life takes place, but in the culture at large this was the case. The view was expressed in various ways ranging from bigotry to quiet disgust to restriction of gay expression to societal stigma. I am not commenting on the rights and wrongs of any of these things but only say that that is the view that I saw.
Holland being tolerant in just about everything was the most tolerant of all but I never got the impression that homosexuality was considered anything but abnormal and deviant.
Sure there will be religious folk who condemn it from the pulpit as there are folk like you who see no problem at all. In the middle however, where the majority reside, the view was as I have expressed above.
You assertion that the anti-gay marriage stance is purely the result of religious prejudice is a flawed one. The secular world says otherwise. They may not prevent gays getting married for they might well be convinced by the 'civil rights' type arguement you put up. But abnormal and abherant they can still hold it to be.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by nator, posted 06-04-2006 7:38 AM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by nator, posted 06-04-2006 8:31 AM iano has replied
 Message 74 by Faith, posted 06-04-2006 12:41 PM iano has not replied

iano
Member (Idle past 2051 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 64 of 304 (317535)
06-04-2006 8:28 AM
Reply to: Message 62 by nator
06-04-2006 7:38 AM


Re: It's coming out, finally, isn't it faith?
double post
Edited by iano, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by nator, posted 06-04-2006 7:38 AM nator has not replied

iano
Member (Idle past 2051 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 66 of 304 (317539)
06-04-2006 8:56 AM
Reply to: Message 65 by nator
06-04-2006 8:31 AM


Re: It's coming out, finally, isn't it faith?
It doesn't have to be prejudice or bigotry at all that is being expressed. If a population thinks a particular behaviour is repellent then that is what they think. And that they think so makes it so - barring some other higher authority you can call into the dock.
Remember whatever rule or principle you refer to in justifying a promotion of gay marriage it will be based on an interpretation of what some people felt was the way to go back whenever the rule or principle was established. Their view isn't some absolute truth and it is only relevant in so far a population are willing to be guided by that view. Constitutional amendements show that the population (via those they vote to speak on their behalf) from time to time feel the need to further define that which is not fully covered in the original. And it can be expressed in any way the population likes. Something is bigotry only if the population says so and not if they don't. Until such time as they say so then bigotry-in-my-own-image-and-likeness is the best one can claim. Unless, like I say, you can refer to some other court which stands higher than the populations view at this moment.
In the meantime, you are free to lobby for a change in the direction you personally (or a group of personalities) feel is the right one. And others in whatever direction they like. When the decision falls and the views is established, then you may toss words like bigotry and prejudice around - for the population has decided that that is what that view is. But until then is at best junk-bigotry or perhaps proto-prejudice.
Edited by iano, : typo

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by nator, posted 06-04-2006 8:31 AM nator has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by RickJB, posted 06-04-2006 9:39 AM iano has replied
 Message 69 by arachnophilia, posted 06-04-2006 10:08 AM iano has not replied
 Message 70 by subbie, posted 06-04-2006 10:13 AM iano has not replied

iano
Member (Idle past 2051 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 68 of 304 (317552)
06-04-2006 9:49 AM
Reply to: Message 67 by RickJB
06-04-2006 9:39 AM


Re: It's coming out, finally, isn't it faith?
The trouble with isolating it so is that is seeks to place the issue in a bell jar from which everything that may inform the decision is sucked out. And that just doesn't deal with society as we find it. Society is a hugely complex affair and issues arising in it should be expected to be complex. For instance, I would hold that one cannot put an issue in a bell jar and then spanner on it without reference to anything else. You might hold that we can. And so we go on.
The dictionary definition is only one of a series of definitions all of which are informed by this worldview and that. In the end it can only be society at large which decides the issue (and God of course in which ever way he allows things to develop - he might well allow gay marriage to occur even though it is against his law). It might not be deemed to be an ideal way but it is the only way we have got.
In the meantime I would uphold everyones right to try to make the society reflect the way they would like to have it and respect that right. The use of slander on both sides is unfortunate but probably to be expected - for it is worldviews that are being expressed here. And we know the can of worms that will be opened once these pitch tents.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by RickJB, posted 06-04-2006 9:39 AM RickJB has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by RickJB, posted 06-04-2006 10:30 AM iano has not replied

iano
Member (Idle past 2051 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 286 of 304 (318669)
06-07-2006 9:20 AM
Reply to: Message 284 by Yaro
06-07-2006 8:52 AM


Re: Gay marriage represents "anything goes"
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?
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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 284 by Yaro, posted 06-07-2006 8:52 AM Yaro has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 290 by Yaro, posted 06-07-2006 9:55 AM iano has replied

iano
Member (Idle past 2051 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 298 of 304 (318720)
06-07-2006 11:37 AM
Reply to: Message 290 by Yaro
06-07-2006 9:55 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.
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. 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
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
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.
I don't see that societies endless cycle of entering into and emerging from destructive tendencies having any bearing on this issue. That we have done in the past and will do again in the future means we should stand back whilst some, and it is only some, attempt to drag things down again? Hardly.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 290 by Yaro, posted 06-07-2006 9:55 AM Yaro has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 300 by SuperNintendo Chalmers, posted 06-07-2006 12:32 PM iano has not replied
 Message 301 by Yaro, posted 06-07-2006 12:40 PM 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