Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 58 (9173 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: Neptune7
Post Volume: Total: 917,575 Year: 4,832/9,624 Month: 180/427 Week: 93/85 Day: 0/10 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Marriage is a civil right in the US
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1544 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 241 of 304 (318121)
06-05-2006 8:05 PM
Reply to: Message 239 by Faith
06-05-2006 7:43 PM


Re: It's coming out, finally, isn't it faith?
The idea that two MEN need any kind of protection of each other is ridiculous.
Because all men know how to fight? Because all men have no need for protection? Like, I'm sure these statements make sense to you, but do you give them any thought before you type them?
The idea that no man needs, or desires, protection is what 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.
They can, if one is a man and the other is a woman and neither one of them is already married. Or, had you never heard of the "marriage of convienience?"
They do not deserve some kind of CULTURAL RECOGNITION of their unnatural relationship, benefits, percs etc.
Sure they do. They are, after all, part of the culture.
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.
We could start with the civil laws regarding marriage, for instance.
Faith, tell me this - even if your state recognizes the legality of a same-sex marriage union, why does that mean that you have to?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 239 by Faith, posted 06-05-2006 7:43 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 242 by jar, posted 06-05-2006 8:27 PM crashfrog has not replied
 Message 243 by Faith, posted 06-05-2006 8:28 PM crashfrog has replied

jar
Member
Posts: 34047
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 5.7


Message 242 of 304 (318124)
06-05-2006 8:27 PM
Reply to: Message 241 by crashfrog
06-05-2006 8:05 PM


Re: It's coming out, finally, isn't it faith?
It is actually easily solved. Takes only one law.
There will be a new term, called "Bunny Bopping" that will apply to all long term relationships between to concenting adults regardles of sex. The term will be interchangable with the term marriage as it appears in any Federal, State or local ordinance, any contract or agreement, Foriegn or domestic.
The terms "Marriage" or "Bunny Bopping" will be used interchangeably and will carry the same meaning.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 241 by crashfrog, posted 06-05-2006 8:05 PM crashfrog has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 250 by Asgara, posted 06-05-2006 9:29 PM jar has not replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1521 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 243 of 304 (318125)
06-05-2006 8:28 PM
Reply to: Message 241 by crashfrog
06-05-2006 8:05 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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 241 by crashfrog, posted 06-05-2006 8:05 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 244 by Yaro, posted 06-05-2006 8:33 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 249 by nator, posted 06-05-2006 9:23 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 252 by crashfrog, posted 06-05-2006 9:42 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 253 by Shh, posted 06-05-2006 10:17 PM Faith has not replied

Yaro
Member (Idle past 6573 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

DBlevins
Member (Idle past 3853 days)
Posts: 652
From: Puyallup, WA.
Joined: 02-04-2003


Message 245 of 304 (318128)
06-05-2006 8:42 PM
Reply to: Message 239 by Faith
06-05-2006 7:43 PM


Re: It's coming out, finally, isn't it faith?
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...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.
Firstly, homosexual relationships are natural. They occur across cultures.
Second, since there are cases of homosexual unions that contain children (ie. one or both mothers keeping their children while living with their partner or possibly in future cases through adoption by two male partners), then both partners should be allowed the same benefits through marriage that heterosxual couples are afforded. Your idea that "protection" is applicable to the case on whether they should recieve benefits is a red herring. If on the other hand you imagine that the "protection" for married couples is in the form of protection from losing their shared apartment, then of course two men or women would need that protection, just as hetero married couples do. Shared insurance and other benefits are definitly applicable in today's society and something that should be afforded to homosexual couples through marriage just as it is for married hetero couples. You have nothing to lose Faith, while they gain some very important legal benefits. (and off-topic but---> in any case women historically, brought home approx. 70% of the food nutrition before the advent of the industrial revolution so it was the men who needed them...)
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.
Marriage IS a legal contract, whether you said it or not. If it wasn't a legal contract their would be no need for Judge Judy of Divorce court, nor divorce lawyers, etc. It is also a cultural institution whether you agree or not. Regardles of what other societies or communities make of homosexual marriages (and many countries allow such marriages) the issue here seems to be the United States and it's discrimination of such marriage unions. It is both.
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.{...}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.
It is not JUST a cultural thing. It is also a legal contract. Society is not going to be harmed by allowing two men or women to get married, just as it isn't harmed by allowing some man to marry a woman. Your insistance that it is unnatural is becoming tiresome. I have already showed you that it is NATURAL cross culturally, and therefore, just as you so succinctly pointed out about hetero marriages; homosexual marriage IS fundamental, universal, and historical. {feel free to take the wax out of your ears and blinders off your eyes and do some research about it. Perhaps read the through the links I provided before or do your own research.}
Why should I be forced to recognize or support YOUR marriage or anyones marriage then? I would have though you could give a rats hind-end whether I think your marriage is unnatural or right. I frankly could not give a hoot about your marriage so how is your marriage affecting me?
Finally, again, it is not JUST a cultural thing. It is also a legal contract. And homosexual couples in cultures throughout history and countries today allowed and allow homosexual marriage unions.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 239 by Faith, posted 06-05-2006 7:43 PM Faith has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 258 by nator, posted 06-06-2006 8:05 AM DBlevins has not replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2247 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 246 of 304 (318131)
06-05-2006 8:51 PM
Reply to: Message 211 by Faith
06-05-2006 5:42 PM


quote:
I've heard that that's a lot of propaganda, that it is not impossible for a gay partner to visit in the hospital, that the patient may designate who is allowed access.
But if they don't designate beforehand and they are not conscious to designate afterwords, there is nothing legally stopping the patient's family from barring their same-sex partner from seeing them. They could not legally bar them if they were married.
quote:
I'm sure that where it really is a problem, laws can be changed to accommodate such situations without having to involve marriage.
So, making it exactly the same as marriage but calling it something else? How is that different from just marriage?
quote:
And picturing a gay "couple" with children is really ridiculous.
Not really. I lived for almost a decade in a county in Michigan where gay adoption was legal, so lots of gay couples who had kids already from previous marriages and from artificial insemination, and who wanted their parners to adopt them could do so, and childless gay couples (just like childless straight couples) could adopt kids as well.
Lots of families, basically, going about their lives as families do.
quote:
Where did they get them?
Er, in the case of lesbians, they often give birth to them.
quote:
If they are their own from a previous hetero relationship then they should have whatever benefits are available to single parents, if there are any, and if there aren't, they shouldn't get more benefits than single parents do. There is no reason their raising of children, whatever the reason for their having them, should be done as anything but a couple of uncles or aunts, who do in fact on occasion have that sort of responsibility.
Why do you want to punish the children of gay parents?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 211 by Faith, posted 06-05-2006 5:42 PM Faith has not replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2247 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 247 of 304 (318135)
06-05-2006 8:59 PM
Reply to: Message 220 by Faith
06-05-2006 6:33 PM


quote:
That's life, Doc, at least it was until the lefties decided that nobody should ever be prohibited from anything.
Hyperbole in place of rational argument impresses nobody.
There are many, may things that "we lefties" think people should be prohibited from doing.
quote:
It used to be that singles couldn't adopt either, and married heteros had to qualify.
All people who want to adopt still have to qualify, Faith.
When there are no unwanted children waiting for loving, stable homes, then maybe we can see about limiting the particular type of loving, stable parents who are allowed to do so.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 220 by Faith, posted 06-05-2006 6:33 PM Faith has not replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2247 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 248 of 304 (318137)
06-05-2006 9:05 PM
Reply to: Message 223 by Faith
06-05-2006 6:41 PM


quote:
Gays are a travesty of a couple, and kids are going to figure that out eventually.
I have three good friends who were raised by gay parents, and not a single one believes this.
My own still-married hetero parents, though, ...THAT is a travesty of a couple. They despise each other and have for as long as I can remember.
Again, just how do you fine a "marriage"? Is the single most important factor in who should get married the ability to breed?

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

nator
Member (Idle past 2247 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 249 of 304 (318145)
06-05-2006 9:23 PM
Reply to: Message 243 by Faith
06-05-2006 8:28 PM


a reply to these questions, please Faith.
This is from message 105 in this thread, which is a summary post of several unanswered questions.
quote:
What is threatened is the meaning of marriage as an institution in the society, and the integrity of the society itself. I figure when people have lost their bearings to the point that they can even consider marrying people who have no reason whatever for marriage except their own whims and feelings, the society is about to self-destruct, just come unglued, just stop functioning, be vulnerable to all kinds of destructions from within and without.
This is dire-sounding, yet very vague.
I'll quote you, and my reply, from a previous message that you didn't answer:
quote:
Of course gays want marriage, it will supposedly legitimize them. It won't, it will only make marriage a ridiculous travesty.
How so, specifically?
Can you provide some likely scenarios or examples of what you predict will happen?
In addition, you ignored several of my other questions to you, which I'll list here for your convenience:
quote:
The fact that no culture on earth has ever recognized gay marriage has been my argument.
So, what you are saying is that no culture on Earth is allowed to have gay marriage as a unique feature, nor change to include it, is that correct?
And the reason for this is simply "because it's always been this way".
Correct?
quote:
Gays have no reason whatever for marriage.
Love and committment have no place in marriage, I agree.
It is a fairly recent phenomena to make love and attraction and mutual respect a factor in whom to marry. I support going back to the traditional reasons to marry; forming alliances between families and business interests, consolidating fortunes, and also for pumping out lots of offspring in order to have lots of hands to work the farm.
[quote]Marriage has always been for the sanctifying of heterosexual unions, with the potential of childbearing. No such thing exists between gays. The idea that two men need the protection of the state for their "relationship" is sick.[/qupte]
So, is it your opinion that unassisted procreation is the main and compelling justification for any marriage?
Marriage is to be about breeding only?
quote:
Marriage is between heterosexuals because of the POTENTIAL for children, AS I SAID. It doesn't matter whether they have them or not.
There is NO POTENTIAL for children if the heteros have been sterilized, or have been through menopause.
Should infertile people be barred from hetero marriage?

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

Asgara
Member (Idle past 2380 days)
Posts: 1783
From: Wisconsin, USA
Joined: 05-10-2003


Message 250 of 304 (318149)
06-05-2006 9:29 PM
Reply to: Message 242 by jar
06-05-2006 8:27 PM


alternate terms
bunny bopping sounds way too fun, much funner than marriage.
I think the alternate term should be "trolling in HELL". Now THIS is a good synonym for marriage.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 242 by jar, posted 06-05-2006 8:27 PM jar has not replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2247 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 251 of 304 (318151)
06-05-2006 9:31 PM


Found an interesting quote
in 1911 Rep. Seaborn Roddenberry of Georgia introduced a constitutional amendment to ban interracial marriages. In his appeal to congress, Roddenberry stated that
"Intermarriage between whites and blacks is repulsive and averse to every sentiment of pure American spirit. It is abhorrent and repugnant. It is subversive to social peace. It is destructive of moral supremacy, and ultimately this slavery to black beasts will bring this nation to a fatal conflict"
Doesn't this sound eerily similar to what Faith has been saying about homosexual marriage; namely, she thinks it is "repugnant" and will lead to the "destruction of the nation"?
It's the same language. Almost identical in message.

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1544 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 252 of 304 (318156)
06-05-2006 9:42 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.
Sure. If a man and a woman can have a marriage of convenience, why not allow two men or two women to do the same thing?
Clearly, there's little societal interest in weeding out marriages of convinience, so it's hardly right to deny same-sex pairs the same avenue.
And it isn't right at all to exlude all gay couples from marrying simply because two men or two women might do so for convenience when we don't exclude straight marriages for the same reason.
Honestly, though, your ideas about who needs protection are backwards and archaic, and it's ludicrous that you think they have any relevance in a modern time. In an age of profligate handguns, what protection do you think you have to be a man to provide? Did you miss the fact that we have women soldiers and police officers?

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

Shh
Inactive Member


Message 253 of 304 (318160)
06-05-2006 10:17 PM
Reply to: Message 243 by Faith
06-05-2006 8:28 PM


Re: It's coming out, finally, isn't it faith?
Lo,
Faith you've said earlier, that gay couples should be treated as single. There's a very obvious flaw in this statement.
Watch
1+1=1
Doesn't work does it?
Well, it might if it were 1984, but it isn't.
Also you've said that the "perks" of marriage, were for the "protection" of women, and therefore, gays shouldn't get them.
So lesbians should get twice as much then yeah?
Funny thing is, when you think about it, at this point in histroy, it'd probably be far better to only have gay relationships.
We could legislate who could and couldn't have kids far more efficiently.
We could ensure only good-looking, intelligent, honest people got to reproduce, and everyone got genius kids.
We could plan far more effectively for raising our families.(lets face it not too many gay men are gonna get pregnant by mistake now are they?)
Funny huh, the more you think about it, the more it seems Gays have some advantages over straights, as parents.
Glad I had mine before they ban all us stupid heteros from it.

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

ohnhai
Member (Idle past 5239 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

SuperNintendo Chalmers
Member (Idle past 5911 days)
Posts: 772
From: Bartlett, IL, USA
Joined: 12-27-2005


Message 255 of 304 (318179)
06-05-2006 11:27 PM
Reply to: Message 240 by Yaro
06-05-2006 8:04 PM


Re: A recap
Couldn't have said it better myself Yaro.
You saved me a post
I have to admit that I actually personally find homosexuality kind of gross at some level. However, as I have gotten older I have realized that gay people can't help who they are and should be treated as equal citizens and human beings. It's hard to get through your own personal biases sometimes, but part of living in a free country is protecting the rights of everyone; even those you find objectionable.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 240 by Yaro, posted 06-05-2006 8:04 PM Yaro has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 257 by nator, posted 06-06-2006 7:58 AM SuperNintendo Chalmers 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