Err... the persons wishing to get married should? I don't need mommy and daddy goverment telling me what's best for me.dax said:
I watch Oprah for that.
-- Morgan
On Gay Marriage and Rights..
- Thread starter Morgan Ellis
- Start date
I watch Oprah for that.
-- Morgan
Re: Why stop now?
Yeah, next thing you know them uppity wimmin and minorities is gonna want rights, too.
This is all an old, old argument, really.
Women's rights were going to result in the breakdown of the family. Minority rights were going to result in the breakdown of the family. Janet Jackson's nipple is going to result in the breakdown of the family.
Hell, MPs, SCs and SPs are going to result in the breakdown of the family, for that matter.
Where will it all end, indeed.
-- Morgan
Al Cohol said:
Yeah, next thing you know them uppity wimmin and minorities is gonna want rights, too.
This is all an old, old argument, really.
Women's rights were going to result in the breakdown of the family. Minority rights were going to result in the breakdown of the family. Janet Jackson's nipple is going to result in the breakdown of the family.
Hell, MPs, SCs and SPs are going to result in the breakdown of the family, for that matter.
Where will it all end, indeed.
-- Morgan
Oh please - are we really reduced to pulling out the tired old argument about how gay marriage = rights for pedophiles?dax said:
How is that any more valid than *straight* marriage leading to such rights?
Allowing grown, consenting adults to govern themselves as they see fit, so long as their actions do not impact on minors or others in a negative fashion is really what this board is pretty much about, isn't it? Or do we simply apply a 'I get to do what I want, but gays are different' rationale to this issue?
-- Morgan
The point is that you've just drawn the lines (that is, "grown", "consenting", "no impact on minors", etc.) and it's likely that a fair consensus can be built on that basis. There exists such a consensus on "straight" marriage. But, building a consensus, or what passes for one in our society, is what was behind the question of who decides these sorts of things. You're not suggesting it's every person for themselves now are you?bbwmorgan said:
We've had that discussion already.
Consensus as the basis for awarding 'rights' to individuals?
How long would minorities and women have been left waiting, if that was the criteria?
Look, for me it's as simple as what Ophelia already stated. It's not complex at all.
If any two people of age feel such great love for each other that they want to proclaim it to the world with marriage, good for them. It's a statement of love and commitment. How can anyone, in this day and age when both of these things are in such short supply, deny them that?
Why would you want to? How does a lesbian couple in Vancouver wanting to marry each other *harm* you? Why do you care? How does a gay couple who've lived together for 20 years wanting to marry hurt me? Or anyone else's 'family'?
Isn't the average nuclear family strong enough to withstand some gay couples getting hitched and dancing to Abba at their reception?
If it isn't, then it's the nuclear family that needs help, not gay couples.
I don't know if there's a point to any of this. I have the sinking feeling that there is a certain segment of society who, no matter how rationally you argue this, are simply going to be freaked out about 'scary' lesbians and gays getting married.
What a sad way to see the world. Almost as sad as all of those people out there who see Sexworkers as disposable people who deserve whatever happens to them, and hobbyists as perverted freaks. Not much point in arguing with them, is there? After all, it's doubtful the general public will give us a consensus on *that* issue, either.
-- Morgan
Consensus as the basis for awarding 'rights' to individuals?
How long would minorities and women have been left waiting, if that was the criteria?
Look, for me it's as simple as what Ophelia already stated. It's not complex at all.
If any two people of age feel such great love for each other that they want to proclaim it to the world with marriage, good for them. It's a statement of love and commitment. How can anyone, in this day and age when both of these things are in such short supply, deny them that?
Why would you want to? How does a lesbian couple in Vancouver wanting to marry each other *harm* you? Why do you care? How does a gay couple who've lived together for 20 years wanting to marry hurt me? Or anyone else's 'family'?
Isn't the average nuclear family strong enough to withstand some gay couples getting hitched and dancing to Abba at their reception?
If it isn't, then it's the nuclear family that needs help, not gay couples.
I don't know if there's a point to any of this. I have the sinking feeling that there is a certain segment of society who, no matter how rationally you argue this, are simply going to be freaked out about 'scary' lesbians and gays getting married.
What a sad way to see the world. Almost as sad as all of those people out there who see Sexworkers as disposable people who deserve whatever happens to them, and hobbyists as perverted freaks. Not much point in arguing with them, is there? After all, it's doubtful the general public will give us a consensus on *that* issue, either.
-- Morgan
The exceptions are not the rule. There is nothing intrinsic about a homosexual relationship that involves children. There's exceptions to lots of things in the law but we don't create entire institutions around the exceptions...Winston said:
Like I said in a previous reply: the exception does not prove the rule. There's lot of exceptions to every law but we don't create entire institutions around every exception.The Shake said:
Agreed, but they are more likely to already have children. Children need to see relationships that work, thus second marriages can help stablize children...
I'm not sure how I understand this. Women in the workforce = legalize gay marriage?
Well, that's a separate argument. Perhaps it shouldn't be as such.
Depends on what you mean. If we're talking about social experiments done by private individuals, thats fine. I don't like the government doing social experiments with children. Nothing legally prevents two gay people from living together for life....
I think you need to relook at what legal marriage does. It provides certain financial and legal advantages. I do not believe these advantages are "rights". Rather, I believe they are benefits.bbwmorgan said:
A heterosexual union by its very nature is geared towards having children. We have to interfer or our biology has to stop working to prevent this from happening.
The government gives certain financial and legal benefits to heterosexual couples to encourage and make it easier for them to have children within a commited relationship. This is what's best for society.
If two gay people want to live together for life, I have no problem with that. If they want to get married in a church I have no problem with that. What I do have a problem with is my tax money going to a situation that society does not benefit from...
As for gay marriage undermining straight marriages, I've said no such thing...
Aw crap - marriage as an institution is doomed no matter who does it...monogamy? Ha!
I'm waiting for contracted marriage;
"Do you, Ms. Black, take Mr. Whoserwhatser to be your lawfully wedded spouse until exactly two years time from this ceremony, at which point another marriage contract may or may not be negotiated?"
"Yes"
"Furthermore, Ms. Black, do you accept that wedding presents shall be limited to those items of a monetary value of fifty dollars or less, consisting of, but not limited to; phone cards, swiffers and lamps from Ikea given that in two years time you may very well choose to run off with some guy named Jose?"
"Bring it on!"
"Fantabulous...I now pronounce you Mrs. Black-Whoserwhatser!"
"Yay! Where's my lamp, you cheap bastard!"
I look forward to many lamps, and guys named Jose.
I'm waiting for contracted marriage;
"Do you, Ms. Black, take Mr. Whoserwhatser to be your lawfully wedded spouse until exactly two years time from this ceremony, at which point another marriage contract may or may not be negotiated?"
"Yes"
"Furthermore, Ms. Black, do you accept that wedding presents shall be limited to those items of a monetary value of fifty dollars or less, consisting of, but not limited to; phone cards, swiffers and lamps from Ikea given that in two years time you may very well choose to run off with some guy named Jose?"
"Bring it on!"
"Fantabulous...I now pronounce you Mrs. Black-Whoserwhatser!"
"Yay! Where's my lamp, you cheap bastard!"
I look forward to many lamps, and guys named Jose.
Man-centered marriages.
Some people call their common law relationship a “marriage”, others call it “living together”, but what difference does it make?’ The farther we get from a biblical understanding of marriage, the harder it gets to understand. This is why there are specific definitions for marriage in the bible and in family law.
While religious institutions are trying to hold back the floodgates with some faithful instruction, they have also lost their bearings as to what makes marriage truly unique.
Without an understanding of the ‘covenant of marriage’, all of our relationships will simply become pursuits at better communication, sorting out roles, and learning to live better with your roommate.
Marriage has to remain exactly what it is to be called marriage. It doesn't have to be for everyone. There are alternative unions to marriage.
Specifically, to enter into a gay relationship and insist that the world redefine the holy institution of matrimony to suit it, would be akin to eating a hamburger and insisting on being called a vegetarian.
Some people call their common law relationship a “marriage”, others call it “living together”, but what difference does it make?’ The farther we get from a biblical understanding of marriage, the harder it gets to understand. This is why there are specific definitions for marriage in the bible and in family law.
While religious institutions are trying to hold back the floodgates with some faithful instruction, they have also lost their bearings as to what makes marriage truly unique.
Without an understanding of the ‘covenant of marriage’, all of our relationships will simply become pursuits at better communication, sorting out roles, and learning to live better with your roommate.
Marriage has to remain exactly what it is to be called marriage. It doesn't have to be for everyone. There are alternative unions to marriage.
Specifically, to enter into a gay relationship and insist that the world redefine the holy institution of matrimony to suit it, would be akin to eating a hamburger and insisting on being called a vegetarian.
Ooookay.ocean976124 said:
So, in this case, I guess couples who decide from the get go that they don't want kids shouldn't be allowed to married. Ditto those who can't reproduce, for whatever reason.
Hell, I give up. I'm with Ophelia. I want a lamp, too.
-- Morgan
There's no way to know who's going to have kids and who's not going to. As previously said, in drawing legal lines the law need not get caught up in tiny details. We simply draw the line in the easiest place. Secondly, people who are married but can't physically produce children can still adopt. Thus their marriage would still serve a benefit to society.bbwmorgan said:
The problem with culture today is that everyone thinks everything is their right. The only rights we have are enshrined in our Constitution. I don't see anything in there about a right to tax breaks.
I think government should get out of the business of recognizing "marriages" altogether, and let it be a purely religious institution again. The government doesn't care whether people are baptized or not. Similarly, there's no reason for government to pay any attention to whether people are married or not. The government has essentially already decided that's what is important is not marriage, but financial dependency following long term cohabitation. Since the reason for recognizing that is to keep as many people as possible off the welfare rolls, there's no reason to distinguish between same-sex and opposite-sex dependency. The insitution of marriage as it existed 100 years ago has been totally hollowed out. Nothing is left but the religious symbolism, and that shouldn't be any business of government.
Leave em alone
Jeez, live and let live people. If couples of the same sex want to marry why should I loose sleep over it.
This is an interesting political issue down here because so many people (70%) are against same sex marriages that the Democrats are afraid of the issue.
The real problem is, who's to blame for the divorce - with hetro divorces we all know it's the man's fault and he must pay but with same sex...
OTB
Jeez, live and let live people. If couples of the same sex want to marry why should I loose sleep over it.
This is an interesting political issue down here because so many people (70%) are against same sex marriages that the Democrats are afraid of the issue.
The real problem is, who's to blame for the divorce - with hetro divorces we all know it's the man's fault and he must pay but with same sex...
OTB
Re: Leave em alone
Closer to 65% i believe, but that's not important. What i was gonna say is i'm guessing a reasonably sizable portion of whatever percentage it is really don't care much one way or the other.....but if they get pinned down on a yes or no to same sex marriages, they'll vote no. In other words, 70% of the population don't feel strongly enough against it to have a problem with what the mayor of San Francisco is doing.onthebottom said:
Re: Re: Leave em alone
OTB
That's like saying that while 75% of Americans favor a womens right to choose that most of them wouldn't mind if it became illegal. Is there a study on the 70% that you mentioned?
OTB
