Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/7


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Homosexuality and Evo, Creo, and ID
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 1141 of 1309 (742198)
11-17-2014 8:50 PM
Reply to: Message 1136 by Faith
11-17-2014 6:46 PM


Re: Sixth District Circuit Court Ruling for Gay Marriage Bans
Divorced?

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
"God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1136 by Faith, posted 11-17-2014 6:46 PM Faith has not replied

dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


Message 1142 of 1309 (742199)
11-17-2014 8:54 PM
Reply to: Message 1136 by Faith
11-17-2014 6:46 PM


Re: Sixth District Circuit Court Ruling for Gay Marriage Bans
Yes I've been married.
And yet to you the only thing that marriage is about is the sex? No love? No caring for each other? No mutual support? No building a life together? Nothing but sex?
How sad. How tragically sad for you. No wonder you are incapable of understanding.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1136 by Faith, posted 11-17-2014 6:46 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1144 by Faith, posted 11-17-2014 11:59 PM dwise1 has not replied

dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


Message 1143 of 1309 (742200)
11-17-2014 9:00 PM
Reply to: Message 1140 by jar
11-17-2014 8:24 PM


Re: More to learn Faith
And don't forget the children. There are families involved in this and severely affected by laws banning same-sex marriage. Children of either or both partners from previous marriages or relationships, as well as adopted children. These families face all kinds of legal problems that would not exist if the parents could be legally married. And even if they can be and are married in a state that allows it, they dare not move to a state that does not recognize their marriage. Nor travel to or through such a state, for fear of an accident or medical emergency that would result in their children being taken away from them.
This issue is also about families! And the children of those families!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1140 by jar, posted 11-17-2014 8:24 PM jar has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1145 by Faith, posted 11-18-2014 12:29 AM dwise1 has replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 1144 of 1309 (742201)
11-17-2014 11:59 PM
Reply to: Message 1142 by dwise1
11-17-2014 8:54 PM


Oy. This has nothing to do with personal marriages. Yikes.
My little analogy to a bolt lock seems to have raised all sorts of weird ideas about what I'm saying about the experience of marriage. RAZD thinks I'm saying sexual variety must not be a part of marriage in my experience and now here's dwise saying it must be all about sex and not about love.
But I'm not saying anything about the experience of marriage, mine or anybody else's. I keep trying to say I'm not talking about marriage as a personal experience at all, in fact I'm objecting to the way people so often treat this whole issue of gay marriage as being about personal experience. No, it's about the social institution of marriage, a more abstract objective concept.
I used the bolt lock example just as a way of emphasizing that it's about uniting the two distinctly different sexes, for which a physical analogy is simply the most accessible, and it's being about two different sexes means it has no relevance whatever to two of the same sex because it's about bringing together the DIFFERENT sexes.
I am not saying anything about sex in marriage or love in marriage or feelings in marriage or any such thing. This is not about the personal experience of marriage.
I knew when I was asked if I'd ever been married that this typical misunderstanding was in the person's mind, as if it's about MY marriage, etc. I'm just not going to answer any more questions about my personal experience because I am not talking about personal experience.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1142 by dwise1, posted 11-17-2014 8:54 PM dwise1 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1153 by RAZD, posted 11-18-2014 7:45 AM Faith has replied
 Message 1158 by Taq, posted 11-18-2014 10:38 AM Faith has replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 1145 of 1309 (742202)
11-18-2014 12:29 AM
Reply to: Message 1143 by dwise1
11-17-2014 9:00 PM


Getting the legalities into perspective
Now you and jar are raising a whole other subject. If you want to talk about the practical matters you have to explain why marriage is the only solution anyone can think of, when surely there must be legal solutions possible that don't require changing the concept of marriage. Single people raise their children outside of marriage all the time. Single aunts and uncles and grandparents raise children the parents have abandoned for one reason or another. Happens all the time, so why is this situation a special case? I rather suspect you are way overdramatizing this. How about giving some evidence?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1143 by dwise1, posted 11-17-2014 9:00 PM dwise1 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1146 by PaulK, posted 11-18-2014 12:47 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 1147 by dwise1, posted 11-18-2014 1:42 AM Faith has replied
 Message 1154 by jar, posted 11-18-2014 8:32 AM Faith has not replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


(6)
Message 1146 of 1309 (742203)
11-18-2014 12:47 AM
Reply to: Message 1145 by Faith
11-18-2014 12:29 AM


Re: Getting the legalities into perspective
In perspective, making this minor adjustment to marriage - an adjustment that has NO EFFECT on heterosexual marriage - is the easiest and simplest way. Defining a whole new status and amending every law and regulation to fit it would seem to be a whole lot more effort.
Really it's the obvious simple solution, and there don't seem to be any good objections to it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1145 by Faith, posted 11-18-2014 12:29 AM Faith has not replied

dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


Message 1147 of 1309 (742204)
11-18-2014 1:42 AM
Reply to: Message 1145 by Faith
11-18-2014 12:29 AM


Re: Getting the legalities into perspective
Familial relationships between a child and their single parents, grandparents, aunts, and uncles are already automatically recognized by law. Same with a parent's legally recognized spouse, even if that spouse is not the child's parent. Not so with a parent's same-sex partner in a state where they are not allowed to marry. That is the difference.
Families headed by two same-sex partners do exist. Are you trying to claim that they do not exist? A quick Wikipedia search produced this article, Same-sex marriage and the family. That article starts with:
quote:
Concerns regarding same-sex marriage and the family are at the forefront of the controversies over legalization of same-sex marriage. In the United States, an estimated 1 million to 9 million children have at least one lesbian or gay parent. Concern for these children and others to come are the basis for both opposition to and support for marriage for LGBT couples.
I would think that one to nine million children is not an insignificant number.
My main source was an NPR article from about a year or two ago following same-sex families lobbying US congressmen in their offices at the Capitol. Part of their message was that they are under near-constant threat of losing their children because of the laws that bar them from getting the same legal status as other couple. Some parents interviewed described the scenarios that they fear the most, scenarios that had already played out for other families, in which the "wrong" parent is the one present to handle a medical emergency in which case social services takes the child from the family.
The Wikipedia article refers to research that shows that children benefit far by being raised by two parents instead of by just one, so your single-people-raising-children scenario is actually the undesirable one. Furthermore, studies show little difference between those two parents being same-sex or different-sex; if anything, children raised by same-sex parents fare better.
I'm a family man. Family is very important. The well-being of children is important. This is very much a part of same-sex marriage. Laws that threaten the family and the well-being of children are bad laws, even evil. That includes your "God's Law" which is your and others' only reason for opposing same-sex marriage. You yourself advocate opposing evil laws -- no, not "advocate", but rather insist upon emphatically. That includes your "God's Law".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1145 by Faith, posted 11-18-2014 12:29 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1148 by Faith, posted 11-18-2014 2:16 AM dwise1 has replied
 Message 1149 by Faith, posted 11-18-2014 2:32 AM dwise1 has replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 1148 of 1309 (742207)
11-18-2014 2:16 AM
Reply to: Message 1147 by dwise1
11-18-2014 1:42 AM


Re: Getting the legalities into perspective
Since one of the two is the natural parent in these cases, or the legally adoptive parent, that is also naturally covered by the laws you mention cover aunts and uncles etc;. Why are you -- or they -- making this sound like such a big problem, I really don't see it at all. Seems to me they could live as a couple, and make use of the legal benefits automatically conferred on the natural parent, etc.
I also don't see why the pertinent legal advantages of marriage couldn't just be applied to the gay couple as a block without the marriage part.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1147 by dwise1, posted 11-18-2014 1:42 AM dwise1 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1150 by PaulK, posted 11-18-2014 2:57 AM Faith has replied
 Message 1151 by NoNukes, posted 11-18-2014 5:48 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 1157 by Taq, posted 11-18-2014 10:36 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 1159 by dwise1, posted 11-18-2014 10:45 AM Faith has replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 1149 of 1309 (742208)
11-18-2014 2:32 AM
Reply to: Message 1147 by dwise1
11-18-2014 1:42 AM


Re: Getting the legalities into perspective
This thing about the "wrong" parent being there in an emergency getting the child taken away from them? This sounds like hysteria to me. Sometimes a friend or neighbor or babysitter has to stand in for a parent, what's the big deal?
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1147 by dwise1, posted 11-18-2014 1:42 AM dwise1 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1152 by NoNukes, posted 11-18-2014 5:57 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 1160 by dwise1, posted 11-18-2014 10:48 AM Faith has not replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 1150 of 1309 (742212)
11-18-2014 2:57 AM
Reply to: Message 1148 by Faith
11-18-2014 2:16 AM


Re: Getting the legalities into perspective
quote:
Seems to me they could live as a couple, and make use of the legal benefits automatically conferred on the natural parent, etc.
That would obviously leave the family - including the children - at a disadvantage. A considerable disadvantage in some cases, such as if anything were to happen to the natural parent. If the benefits of marriage are valuable for raising children, why deny them to gay couples with children ? While allowing childless heterosexual couples to enjoy the benefits?
quote:
I also don't see why the pertinent legal advantages of marriage couldn't just be applied to the gay couple as a block without the marriage part.
Answered before it was asked. Message 1146

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1148 by Faith, posted 11-18-2014 2:16 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1163 by Faith, posted 11-18-2014 1:01 PM PaulK has replied

NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 1151 of 1309 (742215)
11-18-2014 5:48 AM
Reply to: Message 1148 by Faith
11-18-2014 2:16 AM


Re: Getting the legalities into perspective
I also don't see why the pertinent legal advantages of marriage couldn't just be applied to the gay couple as a block without the marriage part.
Once the state has elected to do such a thing, then what is the rationale for not considering the resulting state a marriage? The answer would be simply because a bunch of people not involved in the relationship don't like the idea for religious reasons.
Perhaps you can articulate a secular purpose for a non-marriage marriage. Because on its face your idea seems contrary to the Establishment Clause.
And it wouldn't solve all of the issues anyway. In NC the constitution abolishes not just gay marriage but also all gay marriage substitutes, so what you are asking for is not what many bigots want anyway. Are you going to bake gays people a 'committed relationship recognition cake'?

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
I have never met a man so ignorant that I couldn't learn something from him. Galileo Galilei
If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1148 by Faith, posted 11-18-2014 2:16 AM Faith has not replied

NoNukes
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 1152 of 1309 (742216)
11-18-2014 5:57 AM
Reply to: Message 1149 by Faith
11-18-2014 2:32 AM


Re: Getting the legalities into perspective
This thing about the "wrong" parent being there in an emergency getting the child taken away from them? This sounds like hysteria to me. Sometimes a friend or neighbor or babysitter has to stand in for a parent, what's the big deal?
Because the 'right' parents rights can be violated. In the case of a lesbian couple where one of the partners is the biological parent, grandparents should not be standing in where the other parent is available. And if the parent is not available, then both sets of grandparents should have equal say so. And the 'right' parent should not have to go through some expensive, discretionary adoption procedure just to vindicate those rights.
This is exactly the kind of crap that goes on now. In one case a state refused to accept a child support payment from a gay spouse and instead insisted that a sperm donor was the father who owed the payment. Total crap.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
I have never met a man so ignorant that I couldn't learn something from him. Galileo Galilei
If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1149 by Faith, posted 11-18-2014 2:32 AM Faith has not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 1153 of 1309 (742221)
11-18-2014 7:45 AM
Reply to: Message 1144 by Faith
11-17-2014 11:59 PM


Re: Oy. This has nothing to do with personal marriages. Yikes.
... RAZD thinks I'm saying sexual variety must not be a part of marriage in my experience ...
I used the bolt lock example just as a way of emphasizing that it's about uniting the two distinctly different sexes, ...
The first point dear Faith is this: there are many fun a varied ways to enjoy a sexual experience without being limited to putting a penis into a vagina. Tongues have no significant sexual differentiation, fingers and toes have no significant sexual differentiation ... and we know that it is not about making children or marriages between elderly people would also be objectionable. So how you have sex is irrelevant.
The second point is that once we have eliminated the need for a penis to enter a vagina in order to have a marriage, then we can focus on all the other aspects of marriage.
When we do that there is no reason to say that people A & B can get married but people C & D cannot, and it is obviously irrational to do so.
Enjoy

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1144 by Faith, posted 11-17-2014 11:59 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1164 by Faith, posted 11-18-2014 1:04 PM RAZD has replied

jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 1154 of 1309 (742224)
11-18-2014 8:32 AM
Reply to: Message 1145 by Faith
11-18-2014 12:29 AM


Re: Getting the legalities into perspective
I outlined the reason to use the term marriage and the biggest is that there are literally tens of thousands of instances where the words marriage or spouse are included. Even finding all such instances is near impossible as the attempt by Christian Creationist Conmen to change the wording in Of Pandas and People proved.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1145 by Faith, posted 11-18-2014 12:29 AM Faith has not replied

Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 1155 of 1309 (742227)
11-18-2014 9:20 AM
Reply to: Message 1136 by Faith
11-17-2014 6:46 PM


Re: Sixth District Circuit Court Ruling for Gay Marriage Bans
How does homosexual marriage effect your marriage?

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
"God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1136 by Faith, posted 11-17-2014 6:46 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1162 by Faith, posted 11-18-2014 12:58 PM Theodoric 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