Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 57 (9174 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: Neptune7
Post Volume: Total: 917,616 Year: 4,873/9,624 Month: 221/427 Week: 31/103 Day: 0/11 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Marriage is a civil right in the US
docpotato
Member (Idle past 5131 days)
Posts: 334
From: Portland, OR
Joined: 07-18-2003


Message 226 of 304 (318091)
06-05-2006 6:48 PM
Reply to: Message 220 by Faith
06-05-2006 6:33 PM


That's life, Doc,
I just wanted to point out to you that earlier you said these people can live the way they choose and then you proceed to express a desire to deny them the opportunity to live the way they choose. If that's the way you are and you're comfortable with this sort-of weak justification for persecution, then that's fine with me. I know I couldn't live like that.
at least it was until the lefties decided that nobody should ever be prohibited from anything.
I don't really know if this is the case. I know that I consider myself a leftie and this is not my position. But this could just mean that I'm not a true leftie. Anyway, if it is the case this is dumb. There are good reasons to prohibit people from things. What are the good reasons for prohibiting gay men or women from adopting?
It used to be that singles couldn't adopt either, and married heteros had to qualify.
Well, I don't think that having people go through some degree of screening before they adopt kids is a bad idea. I remain unconvinced that gay women and men should be prohibited from adopting children. Are there reasons I should know about?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 220 by Faith, posted 06-05-2006 6:33 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 233 by Faith, posted 06-05-2006 7:10 PM docpotato has not replied

SuperNintendo Chalmers
Member (Idle past 5917 days)
Posts: 772
From: Bartlett, IL, USA
Joined: 12-27-2005


Message 227 of 304 (318094)
06-05-2006 6:55 PM
Reply to: Message 223 by Faith
06-05-2006 6:41 PM


Wrong again
Oh well. Do I really have to explain that again? Gays are a travesty of a couple, and kids are going to figure that out eventually. Unnatural is the word. Fake. Makebelieve. Emperor's new clothes. Children ideally should have a male and a female parent, ideally their own. Sometimes it is necessary for children to be raised in less than ideal circumstances but it makes no sense to choose those circumstances when other options are available.
I don't care if gays live together, I'm sure they can have nice enough lives together, but marriage is ludicrous. And if they happen to have their own children, I wouldn't take them away from them, although I'm sure you are aware that not too long ago our legal system would have, and that's really not an unintelligent law either. And again, whatever single natural parents must live with, gays deserve no better.
Every single study ever performed has found that children raised by homosexual parents are just as well adjusted as those raised by hetero parents.
You seem to have a lot of opinions about children... unfortunately they are uninformed opinions. Gay parenting has been studied for many years and the results speak for themselves.
As long as there are unwanted children we need all the adoptive parents that we can get.
Faith, the reason you are called a bigot is that you are a bigot.
Bigot
One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ
I don't consider that an insult. I am a bigot about some things myself.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 223 by Faith, posted 06-05-2006 6:41 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 231 by Faith, posted 06-05-2006 7:01 PM SuperNintendo Chalmers has replied
 Message 235 by AdminNWR, posted 06-05-2006 7:11 PM SuperNintendo Chalmers has not replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1528 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 228 of 304 (318095)
06-05-2006 6:55 PM
Reply to: Message 163 by RickJB
06-05-2006 9:23 AM


Re: It's coming out, finally, isn't it faith?
They can make contracts and covenants between each other as they please, disown their natural families in favor of each other or whatever, without having anything remotely like a marriage involved in it as far as status goes.
This is somewhat contradictory. Either they should have legal rights like those of marriage or they shouldn't. Or do you think there are some legal rights that should be withheld?
Really I think gays should get no benefits whatever. They should live as singles live, as roommates if they like, with absolutely no special accommodations. However, I appreciate the argument that a person should be allowed to have whoever they like visit them in the hospital, so I say if that is not allowed then rules should be changed to permit it. This does not necessarily have to involve anything to do with marriage or any particular kind of relationship. And if they don't want their blood relations in their lives, which I understand is frequently the case, they should be permitted to prohibit them from involvements that by law they are normally entitled to. Again, this has nothing to do with marriage. As far as spousal benefits like shared insurance goes, I think the claim is ludicrous. Why should they benefit from their unnatural relationship when singles must go without such benefits? But if insurance companies want to accommodate this sort of thing, and are going to be forced to if gay marriage becomes legal anyway, then ANYBODY should be able to pay for insurance for anybody of their choosing, and again, this has nothing whatever to do with marriage or the sort of relationship. If I have the money to help out a poor person of my acquaintance and would like to include that person in my health insurance, I should be allowed to. It makes just as much sense as gays wanting to help each other out.
I still don't understand what you think marriage IS. Take away religion and tradition and you have nothing more than a secular legal contract between two individuals!
Marriage is defined as a consensual and contractual relationship that is recognized by secular law. Given that definition, and given that you agree that homosexual relionships should be legally recognized, then one must conclude the you are in favour of gay marriage, not against!
I do NOT agree that homosexual relationshiops should be legally recognized. Perhaps my previous paragraph will make it clearer. I'm trying to think of ways to accommodate the most common complaints that they say marriage will cure without the slightest concern about the nature of the relationship.
This is why I am asking what you mean by marriage? If you mean something based on, say, Christianity then you must remember that marriage is not common to, nor ultimately defined by any one religion or doctrine....
I would have thought I'd made that clear time and time again. This has NOTHING TO DO WITH RELGIION OR ANY PARTICULAR RELIGION. ALL CULTURES IN ALL TIMES have had some form or another of marriage, which is a uniting of male and female (I include polygamy) and a setting apart of those to each other from the rest of the culture, which is recognized by the culture as a permanent union.
P.S. Why do you think homosexuals would have to "disown their families"?
I have understood that they often want to, not that they should. They hate having blood relatives have the right to visit them in the hospital instead of their gay partner, and to be their natural heirs, and that sort of thing. I doubt it's a huge deal but this is what I've heard in other debates on this subject.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 163 by RickJB, posted 06-05-2006 9:23 AM RickJB has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 232 by crashfrog, posted 06-05-2006 7:02 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 237 by RickJB, posted 06-05-2006 7:29 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 238 by RickJB, posted 06-05-2006 7:29 PM Faith has replied

docpotato
Member (Idle past 5131 days)
Posts: 334
From: Portland, OR
Joined: 07-18-2003


Message 229 of 304 (318096)
06-05-2006 6:58 PM
Reply to: Message 223 by Faith
06-05-2006 6:41 PM


h well. Do I really have to explain that again? Gays are a travesty of a couple, and kids are going to figure that out eventually. Unnatural is the word. Fake. Makebelieve. Emperor's new clothes.
Would that we all had your power to read the real truth behind everyone's feelings.
God, I wish I knew how to quit reading you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 223 by Faith, posted 06-05-2006 6:41 PM Faith has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1550 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 230 of 304 (318097)
06-05-2006 6:59 PM
Reply to: Message 223 by Faith
06-05-2006 6:41 PM


Children ideally should have a male and a female parent, ideally their own.
So, adoptive parents are worse parents?
Sometimes it is necessary for children to be raised in less than ideal circumstances but it makes no sense to choose those circumstances when other options are available.
Huh, that's funny - I was under the impression that it makes no sense to choose the circumstances when they aren't your kids.
I'm pretty sure that raising a kid steeped in the bigotry and intolerance and hatred you exude is a lot worse for kids. We'll be sending somebody around shortly to pick up yours.
I wouldn't take them away from them, although I'm sure you are aware that not too long ago our legal system would have
You just make this stuff up, don't you? Like you don't even bother to check. You're so sure that it's so reasonable and common to hate gay people that you just assume that everybody else always has.
People aren't like you, Faith. Thank goodness.
and that's really not an unintelligent law either.
Ah. So, when you said you didn't support taking away the kids of gay people, you were lying. When you told me I was making that up, you knew I was actually right. Gotcha.
And again, whatever single natural parents must live with, gays deserve no better.
Do they even deserve to live? You know, maybe we should castrate gays, so there's no possibility at all of them having children.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 223 by Faith, posted 06-05-2006 6:41 PM Faith has not replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1528 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 231 of 304 (318099)
06-05-2006 7:01 PM
Reply to: Message 227 by SuperNintendo Chalmers
06-05-2006 6:55 PM


Re: Wrong again
AS I SAID!!! Gays should be allowed to adopt WHEN ALL ELSE FAILS!
Don't try to whitewash the word "bigot" The way it is used here is clearly a violation of Rule 10. Yes, you are a bigot and so are all the others who call me a bigot. Thank you for recognizing that much.
Gays can do all right raising children in many cases. I never said they couldn't. I said children should ideally have both sexes for parents and only when there is no choice should gays be considered.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 227 by SuperNintendo Chalmers, posted 06-05-2006 6:55 PM SuperNintendo Chalmers has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 234 by SuperNintendo Chalmers, posted 06-05-2006 7:11 PM Faith has replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1550 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 232 of 304 (318100)
06-05-2006 7:02 PM
Reply to: Message 228 by Faith
06-05-2006 6:55 PM


Faith can't read?
I have understood that they often want to, not that they should. They hate having blood relatives have the right to visit them in the hospital instead of their gay partner, and to be their natural heirs, and that sort of thing.
And you read that as "they're rather be visited by nobody than be visited by their family?"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 228 by Faith, posted 06-05-2006 6:55 PM Faith has not replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1528 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 233 of 304 (318102)
06-05-2006 7:10 PM
Reply to: Message 226 by docpotato
06-05-2006 6:48 PM


"Living the way you want" NEVER means to any rational intelligent person not having any restrictions at all!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 226 by docpotato, posted 06-05-2006 6:48 PM docpotato has not replied

SuperNintendo Chalmers
Member (Idle past 5917 days)
Posts: 772
From: Bartlett, IL, USA
Joined: 12-27-2005


Message 234 of 304 (318103)
06-05-2006 7:11 PM
Reply to: Message 231 by Faith
06-05-2006 7:01 PM


Re: Wrong again
Gays can do all right raising children in many cases. I never said they couldn't. I said children should ideally have both sexes for parents and only when there is no choice should gays be considered.
Why? I used to feel like you until I did some research and found out my opinion was based on prejudice and not facts. Once I found out the facts I had no reason to oppose gay parents anymore.
Then again, I try to base my opinions on facts and reality. But that's just me

This message is a reply to:
 Message 231 by Faith, posted 06-05-2006 7:01 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 236 by Faith, posted 06-05-2006 7:16 PM SuperNintendo Chalmers has not replied

AdminNWR
Inactive Member


Message 235 of 304 (318104)
06-05-2006 7:11 PM
Reply to: Message 227 by SuperNintendo Chalmers
06-05-2006 6:55 PM


Observe rule 10
Faith, the reason you are called a bigot is that you are a bigot.
Criticize the argument, not the person.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 227 by SuperNintendo Chalmers, posted 06-05-2006 6:55 PM SuperNintendo Chalmers has not replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1528 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 236 of 304 (318106)
06-05-2006 7:16 PM
Reply to: Message 234 by SuperNintendo Chalmers
06-05-2006 7:11 PM


Re: Wrong again
"Research" is not "facts and reality." If I thought gays would do some kind of irreparable damage to children I wouldn't even be in favor of their adopting when there is no other choice. The fact that children grow up OK is not the point. Ideal is both sexes. This is obvious. Hang research. Research is only as good as its definitions and it will only measure the roughest indicators anyway.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 234 by SuperNintendo Chalmers, posted 06-05-2006 7:11 PM SuperNintendo Chalmers has not replied

RickJB
Member (Idle past 5074 days)
Posts: 917
From: London, UK
Joined: 04-14-2006


Message 237 of 304 (318110)
06-05-2006 7:29 PM
Reply to: Message 228 by Faith
06-05-2006 6:55 PM


Re: It's coming out, finally, isn't it faith?
faith writes:
Why should they benefit from their unnatural relationship when singles must go without such benefits?
Why should heterosexual couples benefit from their relationship when singles must go without such benefits? What's the difference?
faith writes:
I'm trying to think of ways to accommodate the most common complaints that they say marriage will cure without the slightest concern about the nature of the relationship.
But I'm still having trouble indentifying exactly what line you refuse to cross and for what reason. You agree that at it's core marriage is a legal contract. So why should homosexuals be barred from making this contract? Homosexuality is not illegal, so why shouldn't their relationships be legally recognized?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 228 by Faith, posted 06-05-2006 6:55 PM Faith has not replied

RickJB
Member (Idle past 5074 days)
Posts: 917
From: London, UK
Joined: 04-14-2006


Message 238 of 304 (318111)
06-05-2006 7:29 PM
Reply to: Message 228 by Faith
06-05-2006 6:55 PM


Re: It's coming out, finally, isn't it faith?
Double post.
Edited by RickJB, : Double post.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 228 by Faith, posted 06-05-2006 6:55 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 239 by Faith, posted 06-05-2006 7:43 PM RickJB has replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1528 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 239 of 304 (318113)
06-05-2006 7:43 PM
Reply to: Message 238 by RickJB
06-05-2006 7:29 PM


Re: It's coming out, finally, isn't it faith?
faith writes:
Why should they benefit from their unnatural relationship when singles must go without such benefits?
Why should heterosexual couples benefit from their relationship when singles must go without such benefits? What's the difference?
For one thing, because women have historically needed the protection and support of men, and children are the natural issue of heterosexuals and need the protection of parents. This is in the nature of things. In our modern societies these facts of nature tend to be blurred. The need for protection is no longer quite so clear, and there are other ways of getting the protection when needed. Single mothers get the protection and support of the State instead of a husband, and so on and so forth. However, the basic natural situation is only one of the reasons for heterosexual marriage but it's a big one. The idea that two MEN need any kind of protection of each other is ridiculous. If that's the case then ANY two singles of the slightest acquaintance should be allowed to form some kind of mutual protection society.
But I'm still having trouble indentifying exactly what line you refuse to cross and for what reason. You agree that at it's core marriage is a legal contract. So why should homosexuals be barred from making this contract? Homosexuality is not illegal, so why shouldn't their relationships be legally recognized?
Where did I say that marriage is a "legal contract?" It's a cultural institution. Some cultures don't require any kind of legal anything. It's just a relationship that is recognized as exclusive and binding in the eyes of the community. This may or may not be officially legally established.
I don't care what kind of contract homosexuals make between themselves, but society should not be required to treat them as a married couple. This is a CULTURAL thing. They do not deserve some kind of CULTURAL RECOGNITION of their unnatural relationship, benefits, percs etc. If they want to protect each other in various ways legally, no problem, they should do this on their own, and maybe some laws can be changed to make it easier, I don't know. But that's between them alone, and it does not involve the whole society, the rest of us, in being forced to regard their relationship as normal or right or anything of the sort.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 238 by RickJB, posted 06-05-2006 7:29 PM RickJB has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 241 by crashfrog, posted 06-05-2006 8:05 PM Faith has replied
 Message 245 by DBlevins, posted 06-05-2006 8:42 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 256 by RickJB, posted 06-06-2006 3:45 AM Faith has not replied

Yaro
Member (Idle past 6579 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

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024