Welcome guest, is this your first visit? Create Account now to join.
  • Login:

Welcome to the Online Debate Network.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.

Poll: Should the Federal government allow gay marriage?

Page 5 of 11 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... LastLast
Results 81 to 100 of 212
  1. #81
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    10,619
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Supreme Court to hear oral arguments about Proposition 8 today.

    Quote Originally Posted by Talthas View Post
    Actually, mican, you are the one making a positive assertion. Specifically, you are forwarding the proposition that "The government should recognize same sex marriages the same as they do heterosexual marriages."

    The burden is on you to provide support for your assertion... which, to date, you have not done or even attempted to do.
    When did I make that assertion? I mean that is what I believe but I've been responding to other people's arguments. Whoever starts the debate is the one who has accepted the burden.

  2. #82
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Seattle, Washington USA
    Posts
    7,405
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Supreme Court to hear oral arguments about Proposition 8 today.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    So then the state should not recognize marriage. Not,
    "the state should include gays in marriage".
    Again, why should the state not recognize marriage? What compelling reason is there not to? There are many compelling reasons it should. It is a pretty basic desire of people to have legal recognition of family structure to ensure the transfer of property, legal rights in case of illness, and child custody and all those revolve around the union of non blood related people in marriage. The people need and desire such recognition and this is a government for by and of the people.

    The counter argument is what? You don't like it when we have to change the meaning of words?

    o.K. I agree and withdraw my claim that no discrimination is occuring. Per above marriage is a sexually discriminatory term.
    Very well.

    Because the state is "recognizing" marriage.. not defining it. (per the point we agreed on).
    Indeed, but the point is the state is also required to recognize gay marriage if it wants to be within the rule of equal protection under the law. That is the case before the courts.

    And it is defined, both in what the law was intended to address and in the culture.
    The very concept of "gay marriage" relies and is added onto "marriage".
    Sure, but that really isn't at issue in this court case. I realize that is a debate you were having, but I am ultimately siding with you on the particulars of the definition issue, though not what should be done after making that observation.
    Feed me some debate pellets!

  3. #83
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    9,161
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Supreme Court to hear oral arguments about Proposition 8 today.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    It is to the claim that we don't do that (which is what you said - I guess my mind-reading has its limits)

    If you want to argue that they shouldn't do that, that's a different issue.

    But the burden is on you to support that argument. And I'm unlikely to accept any such argument without showing that harm is caused.
    I should say, that is not proper reasoning of law or enactment of law. In this case it is a nonsensical statement being made.

    I shouldn't put so much stress on your mind reading abilities. Your head may explode

    My argument is that it is a nonsensical statement. It is intolerant and inconsiderate of the tradition of marriage. It hijacks and renders meaningless a long standing distinction that people have actively sought out and entered contracts under specific premises.

    On the other hand the argument is "but I want".



    -------------

    Quote Originally Posted by sig
    Again, why should the state not recognize marriage? What compelling reason is there not to? There are many compelling reasons it should. It is a pretty basic desire of people to have legal recognition of family structure to ensure the transfer of property, legal rights in case of illness, and child custody and all those revolve around the union of non blood related people in marriage. The people need and desire such recognition and this is a government for by and of the people.

    The counter argument is what? You don't like it when we have to change the meaning of words?
    It is sexually discriminatory contract. Your argument was that the gov can't discriminate and that recognizing such a contract is discrimination.
    You didn't say there were any exceptions, so all those great things you list will have to fall by the wayside.

    Unless you feel that a discriminating contract is so beneficial to society that it should be given special status. Such as tax breaks etc.


    Quote Originally Posted by sig
    Indeed, but the point is the state is also required to recognize gay marriage if it wants to be within the rule of equal protection under the law. That is the case before the courts.
    Gay marriage is a contradictory statement. Please make a statement that is coherent. Are gays engaging in a private contract that the state is failing to recognize?
    or are they seeking to have a contract who's terms do not apply to them or describe them changed so that they won't have to come up with their own?

    Quote Originally Posted by sig
    Sure, but that really isn't at issue in this court case. I realize that is a debate you were having, but I am ultimately siding with you on the particulars of the definition issue, though not what should be done after making that observation.
    The answer seems self evident if we agree on the meaning of the word "marriage" and accept that the marriage contract is sexually a sexually discriminating one (among many other discriminating factors).
    The first is "does the contract describe a gay relationship?"
    the answer is No. It is true that it describes many parts, but it does not accuratly descrive the sexual aspect.. thus they can not be rightly be called "married".
    The state may still have on obligation to offer their relationships the same benifits of marriage, but as to it being called or classified marriage we have our answer. It is not.

    The question of "should it be". Should we change the meaning of the word marriage and the terms of all contracts that are so called?
    No,
    1) We should respect the long standing culture of marriage and be tolerant of those that have sought to legally separate themselves from other groups.
    2) We should honor the terms of the existing contracts and not change the terms or meanings of them without the consent of those that agreed to those terms.
    3) The term "marriage" was created to make a distinction which this change will destroy. Thus a new word will be needed to make a distinction. If a new term is to be created, it should be the new party that do so, not the long standing party. It is more trouble to annulment all contracts that will be changed, or to rightly allow for the annulment of some than to have new contracts drawn up and recognized by the state for gay relationships.

    If "yes", then we should also annul all standing marriage contracts or at least grant annulment to any that do not consent to the term changes that will apply to their contract. '


    --------------
    Question regarding application.

    When a man and woman live together for several years(may vary from state to state) they are or can be considered "married" (I think it is called a common law marriage")
    Should we change the meaning of the word marriage to be "any two consenting adults", will room-mates be "married" when they finish college? Our good friends "The odd couple" would have had a common law marriage?

    Assuming it would, do advocates have a problem with that?
    To serve man.

  4. #84
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    2,765
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Supreme Court to hear oral arguments about Proposition 8 today.

    Seems to me the discussions thus far are ignoring that SCOTUS is ruling on the constitutionality of DOMA & Prop 8 not whether gay marriage is constitutional or not.

    What I'm not really clear on is that even though they may be struck down as unconstitutional and presumably all the similar laws in other states, the end result only seems to rule out laws denying gay marriage. So does that mean that gay marriages will be allowed automatically or will that have to be explicitly allowed?

  5. #85
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    4,716
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Supreme Court to hear oral arguments about Proposition 8 today.

    It's a pleasure to see that, as at the time of this post, the
    45% of the vote in our poll goes with the first
    option. Good stuff, we're moving forward.

    Marriage is a fundamental human right and there seems to be no justification for disallowing same-sex couples from exercising that right. The purpose of marriage is not procreation. It's a union between two consenting adults (for all those who want to slippery-slope this into an argument that this means we should allow child marriage), with a promise to share their lives together. There's no reason why the government should encourage (and support) such unions between man and woman but not between two men or two women.

    Tradition arguments have no legs because traditions that discriminate and attempt to deprive minorities of their rights should not be protected by law. You can have your tradition. But don't force it on others.

    Another impressive aspect of this discussion is that I haven't seen even a single post that would bring religion into it. This can be contrasted with a similar thread some 5 years ago (can't remember which one).

    Good stuff, ODN.
    "I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world" - Richard Dawkins

    "If you could rationalize with Religious people there would be no more Religious people" -Gregory House

  6. #86
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,706
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Supreme Court to hear oral arguments about Proposition 8 today.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    I don't understand what you are saying.
    I mean that I believe you are confusing the idea that people can infer and imply context around a word with the actual definition of the word itself.

    When I say, in response to somebody cutting me off in traffic "oh man, I 'm gonna kill that guy", I don't mean I'm literally going to end his life, rather I'm annoyed or mad at him. Because the context of my statement makes that clear does not mean that that is the new definition of the word.
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.” -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


  7. #87
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    9,161
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Supreme Court to hear oral arguments about Proposition 8 today.

    Quote Originally Posted by ALLO
    Marriage is a fundamental human right and there seems to be no justification for disallowing same-sex couples from exercising that right.
    Lukcly no such thing exists in the U.S. It is not illegal for a gay couple to call themselves married, to enter into contracts together, to live together, sleep together etc.
    In short, homosexuality is not disallowed.

    Quote Originally Posted by ALLO
    The purpose of marriage is not procreation.
    This assumes that there is an ultimate singular purpose to marriage at all. This denies that marriage serves different purposes to different groups.

    Quote Originally Posted by ALLO
    It's a union between two consenting adults
    That is not the extent of the definition and is an oversimplification. If the above was the definition, then mothers and son's would abe allowed to marry. Fathers and daughters etc.
    That is not the case. So What "marriage" is defined as is very specific and excludes all sorts of relationships.

    Quote Originally Posted by ALLO
    (for all those who want to slippery-slope this into an argument that this means we should allow child marriage), with a promise to share their lives together.
    yea, don't mistake my above point for slippery slope, I'm still talking about adults.

    Quote Originally Posted by ALLO
    There's no reason why the government should encourage (and support) such unions between man and woman but not between two men or two women.
    There may be no argument against the gov supporting both unions, but the argument beging offered is in the gov equating them in name or using the same name to describe both.
    Becauase marriage is a private contract that the gov recognizes. The private contract does not allow for same sex partners.

    Quote Originally Posted by ALLO
    Tradition arguments have no legs because traditions that discriminate and attempt to deprive minorities of their rights should not be protected by law. You can have your tradition. But don't force it on others.
    Ditto, and here we have a minority trying to force their tradition on the majority. Attempting to userp a name for their purpose, when a clear alternative exists that respects the traditions of others. Namely, creation of a new and equally recognized by the state contract
    that actually describes the homosexual relationship.

    Quote Originally Posted by ALLO
    Another impressive aspect of this discussion is that I haven't seen even a single post that would bring religion into it. This can be contrasted with a similar thread some 5 years ago (can't remember which one).
    I have in the past argued that "marriage" ,by it's nature, is a religious institution. Much like Communion, or baptism. That the state involving itself at all is unconst.
    I still hold that the fundamental problem in this debate is the connection between a private contract, and the religious act of being married. The lines were blurred at the start and have created this problem.
    Starting with the name. "marriage License" as though the state has any place licensing a religious act. Would anyone be for "baptism licenses" or "Communion licenses?" What if the gov offered really good tax breaks?

    There is just as much debate going on regarding if gays can be priests, but we don't see that in the courts because there is no "licensing" involved. (and rightly so).

    To that end, it seems clear that the church has losts it's distinction (except for Catholics) from the state. Most churches I know all accept a "legal" divorce without question, as though the state has some say in spiritual events.
    So to me that ship has sailed. If the church wants to distinguish itself again it is going to have to re-name what it is doing to distinguish it from the world.
    To serve man.

  8. #88
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    4,716
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Supreme Court to hear oral arguments about Proposition 8 today.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Lukcly no such thing exists in the U.S. It is not illegal for a gay couple to call themselves married, to enter into contracts together, to live together, sleep together etc.
    In short, homosexuality is not disallowed.
    Discrimination isn't just about prohibition. Treating some group favourably when compared with another group is to discriminate against the latter.

    This assumes that there is an ultimate singular purpose to marriage at all. This denies that marriage serves different purposes to different groups.
    No, it doesn't assume that.


    That is not the extent of the definition and is an oversimplification. If the above was the definition, then mothers and son's would abe allowed to marry. Fathers and daughters etc.
    That is not the case. So What "marriage" is defined as is very specific and excludes all sorts of relationships.
    I agree. That definition was not intended to be a complete definition. It was only intended to emphasise the fact that we're talking about a consensual union between two adults.


    yea, don't mistake my above point for slippery slope, I'm still talking about adults.
    Correct.


    There may be no argument against the gov supporting both unions, but the argument beging offered is in the gov equating them in name or using the same name to describe both.
    Becauase marriage is a private contract that the gov recognizes. The private contract does not allow for same sex partners.
    Yes it does, in jurisdictions where same-sex-marriage is recognised by law.


    Ditto, and here we have a minority trying to force their tradition on the majority. Attempting to userp a name for their purpose, when a clear alternative exists that respects the traditions of others. Namely, creation of a new and equally recognized by the state contract
    that actually describes the homosexual relationship.
    No, we do not have a minority trying to force their tradition on the majority. Same sex couples are not telling you how to live your life. You can adhere to whatever tradition you like. Live and let live.
    I don't see a reason why you should create another institution with all the same legal benefits and give it a different name. What's the purpose of that duality?

    I have in the past argued that "marriage" ,by it's nature, is a religious institution. Much like Communion, or baptism. That the state involving itself at all is unconst.
    I still hold that the fundamental problem in this debate is the connection between a private contract, and the religious act of being married. The lines were blurred at the start and have created this problem.
    Starting with the name. "marriage License" as though the state has any place licensing a religious act. Would anyone be for "baptism licenses" or "Communion licenses?" What if the gov offered really good tax breaks?
    The state does not require you to have be licensed in order to have a church wedding. You can get married in any church you like and on any terms you like and to anyone you like. The state requires you to have a license in order to have a marriage that's recognised by the state and that carries with it state-derived benefits. I don't see a problem with the license requirement.

    There is just as much debate going on regarding if gays can be priests, but we don't see that in the courts because there is no "licensing" involved. (and rightly so).
    I beg to differ. I think nobody should be allowed to be a priest without licensing and registration, including the taking and filing of a DNA sample, photograph, fingerprints, as well as a criminal history check and a working with children certificate. That would be my second preference. My first would be to declare some churches prohibited organisations. Organisations that have a strong recent history of well-established systemic methods of protecting sex offenders from justice have no place in a morally mature society. Yes, I'm off-topic. Just a rant.

    To that end, it seems clear that the church has losts it's distinction (except for Catholics) from the state. Most churches I know all accept a "legal" divorce without question, as though the state has some say in spiritual events.
    So to me that ship has sailed. If the church wants to distinguish itself again it is going to have to re-name what it is doing to distinguish it from the world.
    I think the church knows exactly what it's doing by going along with the rest of society. Being left behind was no good for it. It's been costing it business. Church likes business. It has to adapt to the ever-changing social standards. It's been doing that for 2000 years.
    "I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world" - Richard Dawkins

    "If you could rationalize with Religious people there would be no more Religious people" -Gregory House

  9. #89
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    10,619
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Supreme Court to hear oral arguments about Proposition 8 today.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    It is intolerant and inconsiderate of the tradition of marriage.
    If you are using tradition as the basis of your argument then you are engaging in the appeal to tradition fallacy.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    It hijacks and renders meaningless a long standing distinction that people have actively sought out and entered contracts under specific premises.
    First off, you can't steal (hijack) something unless it belongs to someone else. So you need to show that straights are the moral and rightful owner of "marriage" before I will entertain the notion that it is being stolen. So that introduces the question - what did straights do to morally earn the exclusive right to marriage? I'll need an answer to that question.

    The only premises of a contract is what is actually in the contract. So if you can show me where the one's legal marriage contract says that no gays will ever marry, I will concede this point.


    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    On the other hand the argument is "but I want".
    No, it's I deserve what you have. And they do (assuming people deserve equality).

  10. #90
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,706
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Supreme Court to hear oral arguments about Proposition 8 today.

    Quote Originally Posted by Allocutus View Post
    Discrimination isn't just about prohibition. Treating some group favourably when compared with another group is to discriminate against the latter.
    So is affirmative action discrimination under this view? What about progressive taxation? Mandatory maternity leave times?
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.” -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


  11. #91
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    4,716
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Supreme Court to hear oral arguments about Proposition 8 today.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    So is affirmative action discrimination under this view? What about progressive taxation? Mandatory maternity leave times?
    Of course they are.
    Quote Originally Posted by Multiculturalaustralia.edu.au
    Positive discrimination is a form of affirmative action designed to directly redress the disadvantage that groups of people have experienced in the past. It is based on the premise that justified discrimination is needed in some situations for disadvantaged people to have the opportunity to become equal within society.
    SOURCE

    Reference.com:


    dis·crim·i·na·tion
    [dih-skrim-uh-ney-shuhn] Show IPA
    noun
    1.
    an act or instance of discriminating, or of making a distinction.
    2.
    treatment or consideration of, or making a distinction in favor of or against, a person or thing based on the group, class, or category to which that person or thing belongs rather than on individual merit: racial and religious intolerance and discrimination.
    3.
    the power of making fine distinctions; discriminating judgment: She chose the colors with great discrimination.
    4.
    Archaic. something that serves to differentiate.


    Discrimination is differential treatment. Not all discrimination is objectionable and certainly not all discrimination warrants legal sanctions to protect against it.
    "I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world" - Richard Dawkins

    "If you could rationalize with Religious people there would be no more Religious people" -Gregory House

  12. #92
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,706
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Supreme Court to hear oral arguments about Proposition 8 today.

    Quote Originally Posted by Allocutus View Post
    Of course they are...
    Discrimination is differential treatment. Not all discrimination is objectionable and certainly not all discrimination warrants legal sanctions to protect against it.
    So how is marriage different here than say getting a job or keeping your own income? Those are things that are fundamentally yours as well.
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.” -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


  13. #93
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    9,161
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Supreme Court to hear oral arguments about Proposition 8 today.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    If you are using tradition as the basis of your argument then you are engaging in the appeal to tradition fallacy.
    I have only used appeal to tradition to support "what is". Because you have yet to concede that "marriage" = Man + woman.
    Despite the fact that I have offered many supports and countered all of your objections.
    Now you are misusing the "appeal to tradition" fallacy to cover your lack of a sustained objection to a very obvious fact.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    First off, you can't steal (hijack) something unless it belongs to someone else. So you need to show that straights are the moral and rightful owner of "marriage" before I will entertain the notion that it is being stolen.
    I can.
    Evidence = It is a legal contract with recognizable and generally accepted terms. The contract "belongs" to those engaged in it. The contract is exclusive of many things.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    So that introduces the question - what did straights do to morally earn the exclusive right to marriage? I'll need an answer to that question.
    They literally posses the term through contract. Both in private common use, and through state recognition/partnership in the contract. Specifically because the intent of the contract is to differentiate ones self from other groups.

    Question.
    Suppose a group wants to distinguish themselves from everyone else. Say, people within a given geographic area. So they call it "Texan's" and set a definition of what makes one a "Texan" then engage in contracts that use the term as an identifier, and build other contracts in relation to that one. Then they get certain rights, such as voting and tax considerations etc Then suppose that the Const says that one can't discriminate based on where you live. .. so we have this exact debate when people from new york decide they want to be called "Texans". Then you ask.."what did people living within the boundaries of (insert technical description of boundaries) do to morally earn the exclusive right to "Texan"?

    If common use for hundreds of years doesn't give precedence... what does or can?


    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    The only premises of a contract is what is actually in the contract. So if you can show me where the one's legal marriage contract says that no gays will ever marry, I will concede this point.
    It is implied by the contract being defined by "man and woman". It is the equivalent of saying "gays are excluded".

    Contracts are not defined by specific exclusion of all other things, it is defined by what it is specifically including.
    man+woman has been sustained as being what it specifically included, thus gays are implicitly excluded.

    (done)

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    No, it's I deserve what you have. And they do (assuming people deserve equality).
    That is true in regards to rights and privileges, but it doesn't carry over to naming and contractual inclusion.
    It may be supported that it is wrong for the state to recognize only "marriage" as having legal benefits because it is a sexually exclusive contract.
    That does not mean that the state can or should change that contract as opposed to recognizing the contracts of Gays equally.
    To serve man.

  14. #94
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    4,716
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Supreme Court to hear oral arguments about Proposition 8 today.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    So how is marriage different here than say getting a job or keeping your own income? Those are things that are fundamentally yours as well.
    Getting a job and your own income is just as important. This is why nobody should be precluded from having a job or keeping their income because of their sexual preferences.
    "I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world" - Richard Dawkins

    "If you could rationalize with Religious people there would be no more Religious people" -Gregory House

  15. #95
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,706
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Supreme Court to hear oral arguments about Proposition 8 today.

    Quote Originally Posted by Allocutus View Post
    Getting a job and your own income is just as important. This is why nobody should be precluded from having a job or keeping their income because of their sexual preferences.
    Whoa there, that was one heck of a qualifier that served to completely miss the point. Those forms of preferential treatment I listed weren't based on sexual orientation either so lets not have apples and oranges here.

    Why is it ok then to determine job applications under the basis of race or the ability to retain your income by your economic class? Why is it ok to mandate vacation time on the basis of sex?
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.” -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


  16. Likes MindTrap028 liked this post
  17. #96
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    9,161
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Supreme Court to hear oral arguments about Proposition 8 today.

    Quote Originally Posted by ALLO
    Discrimination isn't just about prohibition. Treating some group favourably when compared with another group is to discriminate against the latter.
    You didn't speak to "discrimination", you spoke to "disalowing".
    It is true that gays are discriminated against in the marriage contract. That does not mean that gays are "disallowed" from engaging in their relationship.

    Quote Originally Posted by ALLO
    I agree. That definition was not intended to be a complete definition. It was only intended to emphasise the fact that we're talking about a consensual union between two adults.
    Right, but you are leaving out a vast amount of also releivant information. Which means you are oversimplifying.

    Quote Originally Posted by ALLO
    Yes it does, in jurisdictions where same-sex-marriage is recognised by law.
    those stats have said it does, but they are incorrect.

    Quote Originally Posted by ALLO
    No, we do not have a minority trying to force their tradition on the majority. Same sex couples are not telling you how to live your life.
    Yes, because they are saying that straits can't contractually distinquish themselves and are seeking to undo the distinction that has been made for a very long time.

    Quote Originally Posted by ALLO
    You can adhere to whatever tradition you like. Live and let live.
    I don't see a reason why you should create another institution with all the same legal benefits and give it a different name. What's the purpose of that duality?
    The reason is that gays are trying to distinquish themselves from other relationships as well, and they want to include the parameters of "marriage" (thus including straits) in their description.
    The term they are choosing does not accuratly describe what they are trying to descrive because "marriage" by definition excludes them.

    It's like saying. Racism should include those that are tollerent of other races.


    Quote Originally Posted by ALLO
    The state does not require you to have be licensed in order to have a church wedding. You can get married in any church you like and on any terms you like and to anyone you like. The state requires you to have a license in order to have a marriage that's recognised by the state and that carries with it state-derived benefits. I don't see a problem with the license requirement.
    I don't think that applies to common law marriages. IE I think you can be "married" without having to get a license.

    Still, you are correct. The point is that it is the licensing that is the problem, not the common practice and contract.

    Quote Originally Posted by ALLO
    I beg to differ. I think nobody should be allowed to be a priest without licensing and registration, including the taking and filing of a DNA sample, photograph, fingerprints, as well as a criminal history check and a working with children certificate. That would be my second preference. My first would be to declare some churches prohibited organisations. Organisations that have a strong recent history of well-established systemic methods of protecting sex offenders from justice have no place in a morally mature society. Yes, I'm off-topic. Just a rant.
    right, you are for state aproved religions. Note taken.

    Quote Originally Posted by ALLO
    I think the church knows exactly what it's doing by going along with the rest of society. Being left behind was no good for it. It's been costing it business. Church likes business. It has to adapt to the ever-changing social standards. It's been doing that for 2000 years.
    I don't see the application. The church was in the lead when it allowed the gov to "sanction" it's rights. The reason it was done was for money for individuals without any concept of having the terms changed by the gov.
    To serve man.

  18. #97
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    4,716
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Supreme Court to hear oral arguments about Proposition 8 today.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    You didn't speak to "discrimination", you spoke to "disalowing".
    Disallowing from exercising that right. The "right" in question isn't a right to play husband and wife (or husband and husband as the case may be) by having an unofficial ceremony that isn't recognised by the state. The "right" is a right to have a real marriage, just like everyone else.


    It is true that gays are discriminated against in the marriage contract. That does not mean that gays are "disallowed" from engaging in their relationship.
    Correct.


    Right, but you are leaving out a vast amount of also releivant information. Which means you are oversimplifying.
    Because it's irrelevant. If you think it's relevant then bring it in and link it into the discussion.


    those stats have said it does, but they are incorrect.
    Because you said so?


    Yes, because they are saying that straits can't contractually distinquish themselves and are seeking to undo the distinction that has been made for a very long time.
    What does very long time have to do with this? If we've been doing the wrong thing for a very long time, does it magically become the right thing to do? I think not.


    The reason is that gays are trying to distinquish themselves from other relationships as well, and they want to include the parameters of "marriage" (thus including straits) in their description.
    The term they are choosing does not accuratly describe what they are trying to descrive because "marriage" by definition excludes them.
    Sabbath was made for man, not man for Sabbath. Words are there to serve us, not the other way around. What's the problem with calling a same-sex-union a marriage? Please do tell.

    It's like saying. Racism should include those that are tollerent of other races.
    I don't get the comparison.
    "I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world" - Richard Dawkins

    "If you could rationalize with Religious people there would be no more Religious people" -Gregory House

  19. #98
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    9,161
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Supreme Court to hear oral arguments about Proposition 8 today.

    Quote Originally Posted by ALLO
    Disallowing from exercising that right. The "right" in question isn't a right to play husband and wife (or husband and husband as the case may be) by having an unofficial ceremony that isn't recognised by the state. The "right" is a right to have a real marriage, just like everyone else.
    They do have the right to have a "marriage" (have a contractual relationship with one of the opposite sex) they just don't have the right to engage in any relationship and call it by terms that do not describe it then force everyone to recognize it as "true. and accurate".

    Quote Originally Posted by ALLO
    Because it's irrelevant. If you think it's relevant then bring it in and link it into the discussion.
    I have, by explaining what a "marriage" contract is and means. By showing that it is sexually discriminatory among other things
    and showing that it by definition doesn't describe the homosexual relationship. No one has a right to have a term that doesn't accurately describe them.. be used to describe them.

    Quote Originally Posted by ALLO
    Because you said so?
    Because my argument is sound and theirs is incorrect.

    Quote Originally Posted by ALLO
    What does very long time have to do with this? If we've been doing the wrong thing for a very long time, does it magically become the right thing to do? I think not.
    I have not argued from right or wrong, but what is. Time does have weight in supporting "what is".
    for example I can argue that the const means XYZ, because for the last 200 years that has been what it has been understood to mean.
    The past 200 years of understanding, is evidence that it IS to be understood that way.

    If I were to argue for right and wrong, I would argue that it is wrong for gays to be joined together by society because it is an immoral act. Bla bla bla.
    That is not my argument though.

    Quote Originally Posted by ALLO
    Sabbath was made for man, not man for Sabbath. Words are there to serve us, not the other way around. What's the problem with calling a same-sex-union a marriage? Please do tell.
    Indeed I have. But I will gladly repeat.
    - Statement of fact- It doesn't describe the relationship accurately per the common definition and understanding of marriage.
    What you are really trying to say is "Why shouldn't we change the word to apply, because we can make words mean whatever we want".
    Here is my answer to that.

    Quote Originally Posted by MT POST 83
    The question of "should it be". Should we change the meaning of the word marriage and the terms of all contracts that are so called?
    No,
    1) We should respect the long standing culture of marriage and be tolerant of those that have sought to legally separate themselves from other groups.
    2) We should honor the terms of the existing contracts and not change the terms or meanings of them without the consent of those that agreed to those terms.
    3) The term "marriage" was created to make a distinction which this change will destroy. Thus a new word will be needed to make a distinction. If a new term is to be created, it should be the new party that do so, not the long standing party. It is more trouble to annulment all contracts that will be changed, or to rightly allow for the annulment of some than to have new contracts drawn up and recognized by the state for gay relationships.

    Quote Originally Posted by ALLO
    I don't get the comparison.
    Racism is a exclusive term, "marriage" is an exclusive term.
    To serve man.

  20. #99
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    4,716
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Supreme Court to hear oral arguments about Proposition 8 today.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    1) We should respect the long standing culture of marriage and be tolerant of those that have sought to legally separate themselves from other groups.
    Why?

    2) We should honor the terms of the existing contracts and not change the terms or meanings of them without the consent of those that agreed to those terms.
    Why?

    3) The term "marriage" was created to make a distinction which this change will destroy. Thus a new word will be needed to make a distinction. If a new term is to be created, it should be the new party that do so, not the long standing party. It is more trouble to annulment all contracts that will be changed, or to rightly allow for the annulment of some than to have new contracts drawn up and recognized by the state for gay relationships.
    The term "marriage" was not created to distinguish between a same-sex couple and a hetero-couple. Why do you insist on a distinction in the first place? What does the distinction achieve?
    "I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world" - Richard Dawkins

    "If you could rationalize with Religious people there would be no more Religious people" -Gregory House

  21. #100
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    9,161
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Supreme Court to hear oral arguments about Proposition 8 today.

    Quote Originally Posted by allo
    Why?
    Because "tolerance" is the chant argued to CHANGE the definition. That we should be "tolerant" of gays. Tolerance goes both ways, so if you think we should be tolerant of people, then my point stands.

    Quote Originally Posted by ALLO
    Why?
    Wait, do you disagree that we should honor contracts?

    Quote Originally Posted by ALLO
    The term "marriage" was not created to distinguish between a same-sex couple and a hetero-couple. Why do you insist on a distinction in the first place? What does the distinction achieve?
    It wasn't to achieve that specific end, but it was to achieve that KIND of end. It was to distinquish one kind of relationship from all other kinds of relationships.
    Among the many qualifiers is opposite sex partners.
    To serve man.

  22. Likes Talthas, Squatch347 liked this post
 

 
Page 5 of 11 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 88
    Last Post: April 6th, 2013, 08:56 PM
  2. Landmark Supreme Court Cases
    By xB3ngALidiVaX in forum Social Issues
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: December 25th, 2005, 01:39 PM
  3. Disastrous Oral Arguments
    By CliveStaples in forum Shootin' the Breeze / Off-Topic
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: July 12th, 2005, 11:54 AM
  4. Supreme Court Nominee
    By Booger in forum ODN Polls
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: July 6th, 2005, 02:20 PM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •