"It is not wrong that procreation is not a basic requirement of marriage.
If you believe that, you have comprehension problems. "
The first sentence is a clear double negative. The second sentence you continue to ignore. Unclear pronoun reference? If by "that" you are referring to the previous statement, then re-read my objections. If you meant the opposite of the previous sentence, then you should have clarified that the obvious inference is not what you meant.
Look up Dr. Kim, professor of international law, Ohio University, 1987-1989. Approximate date of my class, not his tenure at the University. I know he was there when I took his class, when he started and when he left I do not know. There was some connection with him and a Nobel Prize, don't recall if he won one, was nominated for one, or worked with someone who was one of the above.
Simply saying my statements do not apply to your conditions is not a rebuttal or refutation. Discuss property rights, through history, why they are important, and how the state of marriage affected them. Bloodlines and blood ties are basically the same thing as property rights, with the addition of parental bonds and ties. You have not addressed these whatsoever, just insisting they are not involved. The discussion of what they ARE clearly explains how they are involved, primarily as in being NOT PRESENT for a same sex union.
The state of marriage as I perceive it is intimately related with all these important concepts. They are related BECAUSE they are important. To dismiss them as unrelated ignores their importance. You say they don't matter because they are unrelated. You do not address their critical nature to society.
I have explained the importance of numerous items, and how they are concerned with marriage. Pick one, and rather that just insisting it has nothing to do with marriage, explain your reasoning in detail.
"It is not wrong that procreation is not a basic requirement of marriage.
If you believe that, you have comprehension problems. "
The first sentence is a clear double negative. The second sentence you continue to ignore. Unclear pronoun reference? If by "that" you are referring to the previous statement, then re-read my objections. If you meant the opposite of the previous sentence, then you should have clarified that the obvious inference is not what you meant.
I've already gone over this. At this point, you're just diverting because your argument holds no merit.
I said in my last post that I should've added the words 'to say' between wrong and that.
How does this sentence work for you:
It is incorrect to say that procreation is a basic requirement of marriage.
If you couldn't gather after three explanations that that's what I meant, as I said before - there are either comprehension problems or you are diverting because you're argument doesn't hold merit.
Quote: Look up Dr. Kim, professor of international law, Ohio University, 1987-1989. Approximate date of my class, not his tenure at the University. I know he was there when I took his class, when he started and when he left I do not know. There was some connection with him and a Nobel Prize, don't recall if he won one, was nominated for one, or worked with someone who was one of the above.
Most people who are intelligent don't need to qualify themselves.
People just perceive them as intelligent.
Quote: Simply saying my statements do not apply to your conditions is not a rebuttal or refutation.
They aren't my conditions.
They are the conditions of the laws of our state and federal government.
You are the one who is trying to tailor the debate to your conditions.
Quote: Bloodlines and blood ties are basically the same thing as property rights, with the addition of parental bonds and ties. You have not addressed these whatsoever, just insisting they are not involved.
I never said they weren't involved.
I said that no part of any of that has to do with why a homosexual marriage shouldn't be recognized legally by a state or federal government.
Quote: The state of marriage as I perceive it is intimately related with all these important concepts.
What you perceive or what I perceive has no basis in the matter of law.
Quote: I have explained the importance of numerous items, and how they are concerned with marriage. Pick one, and rather that just insisting it has nothing to do with marriage, explain your reasoning in detail.
You know, the kind of thing you usually ask for.
I will close by asking for the sixth (?) time -
What does any of what you are arguing have to do with a homosexual marriage being recognized by a state or federal government?
I get your argument. You've made it repeatedly. What you have avoided doing to this point is explaining how your argument applies to homosexual marriages as it pertains to the government.
"Nearly half of American couples do not have children" is missing one, just one, very important word. NOW. How many of the currently childless couples will have children at some point in the future? Available time period is still ongoing, numbers are not final. They may be just delaying childbirth rather than forgoing it altogether. A contention actually supported by previous studies. People have been having children later in life.
Clear statistic was that only one in 5 women failed to have children during their reproductive years. Available time period is over, numbers are final. This does represent a decrease, it was one in 10 some time ago.
We need 2.1 children per woman or the race dies out, according to the article. Should these children be raised by their two biological parents, or do you have a better way? I have stated that there is no better way. Alternate opinion?
Now, as someone who worked in a law firm, and dealt with wills and trusts, you should understand that a concept in law is not the same as stated goals in a will.
The desire for the house to remain in the family was clearly represented by the request stating "progeny". The legal question is not what, by law, "progeny" is but what the writer of the will's intent was. Dictionary definition is offspring or descendants. The description of the conditions I have offered is what the attorney who read off the will explained to me. Didn't get into a lot of detail as there were some other unusual conditions. That's where the explanation of legality versus conditions of the will was offered.
I'll play phil's game and just say that your statement does not apply, though I have explained why I believe so, which phil will not do.
As for the paragraph you quoted, it contains several statements. Which one is so ridiculous?
"I treat them just like my own". This is a common statement. Basic psychology would suggest that something that is repeated so often, with no prompting, is so stated precisely because it is NOT true. The person stating this knows it is not true, they don't wish to admit it, even to themselves. If there is no question about this, why is the answer constantly being given?
One More Time "It is incorrect to say that procreation is a basic requirement of marriage." Great, we have established what that one means, from the very first time I quoted it. Adding "to say" is meaningless and unimportant. If you wish to contend that using "not" twice is not a double negative, fine, that's not the problem and does not materially affect the meaning.
For the fourth time, approximately, EXAMINE YOUR FOLLOWING SENTENCE.
Quote, from memory, IF YOU AGREE WITH THAT, YOU HAVE A COMPREHENSION PROBLEM.
As for the intelligence and it's perception, most people do. You failed.
The law is currently undergoing the possibility of change. It is in a state of flux. The law, right now, could be said to both recognize AND dismiss same-sex marriage. The law offers no definite point of comparison at this time, therefore my perception and your perception are the only things to compare.
Marriage as I have defined it offers many benefits to society that are not addressed by any other condition. It offers the only way to achieve the many benefits I have described. Same-sex unions offer none of these benefits, and act in opposition to some of them.
I have suggested that marriage exists in order to offer, and was created to offer, these benefits. You have said it ain't so, but given nothing to provide any evidence of this. Same sex union does not provide the societal benefit, so it should not be considered "marriage".
The law should not say that two conditions that are clearly different should be considered the same. Can there be similarities, abso-freaking-lutely, but are they the same, no.
If the reasons are important, and the benefits are important, then the mechanism by which they are provided, or not, is also important.
One More Time "It is incorrect to say that procreation is a basic requirement of marriage." Great, we have established what that one means, from the very first time I quoted it. Adding "to say" is meaningless and unimportant. If you wish to contend that using "not" twice is not a double negative, fine, that's not the problem and does not materially affect the meaning.
For the fourth time, approximately, EXAMINE YOUR FOLLOWING SENTENCE.
Quote, from memory, IF YOU AGREE WITH THAT, YOU HAVE A COMPREHENSION PROBLEM.
I really don't even know what to say to this at this point.
In my opinion, this is quite literally the ramblings of a madman.
What, exactly, is your point here?
I've been unequivocal in my statement - If you believe that procreation is a basic requirement of marriage, your belief is wrong.'
You are the one who is being obtuse.
Quote: As for the intelligence and it's perception, most people do. You failed.
When you question my intelligence, I laugh.
When I question yours, you scramble to give qualifications.
That's all I have to say about that.
Quote:
Marriage as I have defined it offers many benefits to society that are not addressed by any other condition. It offers the only way to achieve the many benefits I have described. Same-sex unions offer none of these benefits, and act in opposition to some of them.
Again ... 'as you defined it'.
Your definition means nothing in terms of law. neither does mine.
This is the crux of my argument that you continue to ignore. I will bold this for you one more time in case you have trouble comprehending -
Nothing you are stating gives merit to the argument that homosexual marriage should not be recognized on a state or federal level.
Quote: Can there be similarities, abso-freaking-lutely, but are they the same, no.
Laid it out once already, thought it was clear. The issue is the pronoun "that", as in "if you agree with that". By "that" you apparently mean the exact opposite of your preceding statement.
Statement - X. If you agree with that, you're nuts. "x" is the first statement you made.
What you meant to say, but did not, is this - X. If you agree with the opposite of that, you're nuts.
I do not believe that your use of "not", twice, was accidental. Convoluted and needlessly confusing. Past experience leads me to believe you were attempting to trap me in the same hole you fell into. Juvenile word games, IMO.
I also pointed out the pronoun confusion, which you completely failed to address.
Not unexpected. You have failed to address almost any specific point, I even suggested we discuss property rights. No response, just insistence that it does not apply.
Again, more name calling. I never questioned your intelligence, I dismissed your fitness as a human being. Very different. This is based on your response long ago, in the Sandusky thread. Totally unacceptable to me.
Same-sex union should not be recognized by law as "marriage" because it does not address procreation or the optimum environment for raising children, does not create the conditions for passing on property or skills within a bloodline, and does not create the same conditions for long-term stability of a society.
They are not equal. If just over half, or more, of all unions are "same-sex", the human race goes extinct. Maybe you find that an acceptable alternative, I don't. If one thing leads to extinction, and the other leads to future growth and stability, they are not equal and should be considered separately. Similar but different is not the same as separate but equal, and once again I will state that playing the race card where it does not belong is repugnant to me.
No, same-sex unions comprise nowhere near half of all unions. HOWEVER - if and when they do, some action should then be taken to discourage them, assuming you consider not going extinct more important than being able to believe you are "fair" to everyone.
I will answer this, but I need to make something abundantly clear - I think you have serious mental problems and you need to seek professional help. I've sent you earnest PM's about this before. You can disregard my assessment - that's fine.
But know that I'm coming from a place of genuine concern - I'm not trying to be insulting here. I think you need help.
Quote:
Laid it out once already, thought it was clear. The issue is the pronoun "that", as in "if you agree with that". By "that" you apparently mean the exact opposite of your preceding statement.
Statement - X. If you agree with that, you're nuts. "x" is the first statement you made.
What you meant to say, but did not, is this - X. If you agree with the opposite of that, you're nuts.
I do not believe that your use of "not", twice, was accidental. Convoluted and needlessly confusing. Past experience leads me to believe you were attempting to trap me in the same hole you fell into. Juvenile word games, IMO.
I also pointed out the pronoun confusion, which you completely failed to address.
Not unexpected. You have failed to address almost any specific point, I even suggested we discuss property rights. No response, just insistence that it does not apply.
At this point, it's very clear ... we have a case of one or more of three things -
1) you have a learning disability that prevents you from understanding basic concepts.
There is no shame in this. For example - there used to be a poster around these parts who was a very bright individual, but suffered from dyslexia and a number of other learning disorders which at times clouded his thinking and responses. We went at it for a number of years, and along the way he admitted as much. Dude, I really mean this, there is no shame in admitting to having a mental illness or a learning disability. It doesn't make any point you make invalid just because you admit so.
2) you have a mental illness that prevents you from understanding basic concepts
I would give the same advice as I gave in option #1
3) You are competent, you know you lost the argument, and at this point you're just entering into semantics in order to deflect.
I say this with the utmost kindness - you can't go around telling people you're in the 99th percentile of intelligence. Have you seen the commercial where the girl talks about her French model boyfriend, who she met on the internet, and some schlub comes up and says 'Bonjourno?' with a shrug?
That's how you come across. Your opinions aren't that intelligent. Your delivery suggests a high school education at best. Are you a bright guy?
Maybe. I could be wrong. Everyone is smart in their own way.
But if someone gave me a few thousand words of your writing, I (and most other people) would conclude that you have severe mental problems, possibly and probably bordering on delusion.
Honestly - and I say this with complete sincerity - if you ever want to talk, PM me. I can be condescending around here, but that;s mainly in the spirit of debate. I worry that you will harm someone, and I will do what I can to prevent it.
Quote:
Again, more name calling. I never questioned your intelligence, I dismissed your fitness as a human being. Very different. This is based on your response long ago, in the Sandusky thread. Totally unacceptable to me.
I asked if you had a learning disability or a mental illness. I went out of my way to express the fact that I sympathize with such conditions.
I even gave you an out - that you were clinging to a failed argument.
But after the whole 'ask this OSU professor' and 'I'm in the 99th percentile' comments, I'm guessing mental illness. Probably borderline or narcissistic personality disorder.
You've been around these boards for awhile, and you've exhibited more than enough signs to worry me.
The poster who put up the Abe Simpson graphic about you ... it was funny, but it was sad.
You're kind of the Don Quixote of the boards.
A lot of people (myself included) will trot out a lot to win an argument, but not many are out there enough to try and tell folks that they're in the 99th percentile of intelligence when they're clearly not. It reminds of 'Connecticut Yankee' in many ways.
The more you fail to recognize reality, the more I think I'm right. I don't think you're capable of relating to rational thought.
I really don't.
And I don't mean that as an insult. I worry for you.
Quote:
Same-sex union should not be recognized by law as "marriage" because it does not address procreation or the optimum environment for raising children
Again - and you constantly fail to address this -
By this definition, a sterile man or an infertile woman cannot legally be married.
By this definition ... 'an optimum environment for raising children'? Really? That's your argument against gay marriage?
And you're claiming to be in the 99th percentile?
The wisest person on this board (Clem) doesn't even approach 99th percentile. The most intelligent person on this board (he doesn't like people to know we chat ) doesn't even come close.
And you're arguing that you do?
This is funny to me on many levels ... but, again, and please, believe me - if you need help in any way, just swallow pride, and I'll be a dude who will be there for you.
I promise that.
Quote:
Same-sex union should not be recognized by law as "marriage" because it does not address procreation or the optimum environment for raising children, does not create the conditions for passing on property or skills within a bloodline, and does not create the same conditions for long-term stability of a society.
Seventh time -
None of what you've said here has any basis of consideration in the legality of a man marrying a man or a woman marrying a woman.
Your argument is as valid as me saying 'There should be no marriage because men are biologically conditioned to spread their seed as many places as possible'.
Is there truth to what I say?
Absolutely.
Would it hold up as an argument in court?
No.
Quote:
They are not equal. If just over half, or more, of all unions are "same-sex", the human race goes extinct.
Why would half or more unions be 'same sex'? What are you basing this assumption on?
What study or statistic has led you to believe that half or more than half of any marriage or union is or would be same sex?
Quote: Maybe you find that an acceptable alternative, I don't.
Fourth time? Fifth time? --
Nobody cares what you or I find acceptable.
That has nothing to do with equal rights.
If what people found to be acceptable was the basis of law, we'd be savages.
Quote: If one thing leads to extinction, and the other leads to future growth and stability, they are not equal and should be considered separately. \
So now we're arguing that homosexual marriages will lead to extinction?
You looked like the losing side of a debate before ... you look insane now.
Quote:
No, same-sex unions comprise nowhere near half of all unions. HOWEVER - if and when they do, some action should then be taken to discourage them, assuming you consider not going extinct more important than being able to believe you are "fair" to everyone.
Again ... you're basing your argument on the idea that someday half of marriages might be gay marriages?
I advise you to seek professional mental help. I don't mean that as an insult. I'm serious. I'm not joking, or trying to be cute. You have mental problems, and you need to see someone.
phil, you have never, ever sent me a PM. Of any kind. You are lying, and this is easily checked.
Request a mod to verify this statement.
Single, simple question. What does the pronoun "that" refer to in your 2-sentence statement I have quoted multiple times? as in, "If you believe THAT".
I do not expect you to address this in any way. You will slither, avoid, deflect, or just run away.
"Creating my own league", would represent the use of Civil Unions, which is apparently unacceptable.
Only the label of NBA player is acceptable.
No analogy, other than the original situation, will be exactly the same as the original situation. The idea is to focus on the similarities rather than the differences.
Quote: Gosh, excellent contribution to the discussion, and man, what a sharp rebuttal!
How about you pick a specific point you disagree with and describe how and why?
If you would prefer to just whine about how "everybody should be treated the same", then send me a tryout application for the Cavaliers.
I know there are ways for old guys who can't jump to play basketball. I don't want that, it's not the same, they're treated differently, I wanna be in the NBA. It's my constitutional right!
Nelson, it's really not worth the effort to have a "discussion" with you, sorry. When you want to make GOOD analogies and debate, I may jump back in. Until then, enjoy your weekend.
Quote: "Creating my own league", would represent the use of Civil Unions, which is apparently unacceptable.
So your basic premise is that gay people aren't up to straight people standards for marriage.
Why do you keep using the lame NBA argument? If a gay guy wants to be in the NBA, just like you do, but he sucks at basketball, just like you do, it's the same thing. You have the same opportunities.
Quote: If procreation is not and never has been a requirement of marriage, and I would call it a purpose rather than a requirement, but if so, why was a failure to have children one of the few legitimate reasons to divorce in many societies and cultures?
Because divorce for any reason was not exceptable, but family lineage was even more sacred than marriage in those cultures and the insistance on having a male hier was paramount.
But again, divorce is a moral issue, not a constitutional one. So using it as a qualifier to your assertion is to strictly take the moral high ground rules and apply them to all.
Last edited by FloridaFan; 04/05/1310:44 AM.
We don't have to agree with each other, to respect each others opinion.
You are correct in what you are saying, however IMO you should not allow the SOURCE of the rule to cloud the reasoning behind it.
Divorce was difficult to get, for whatever reason, from whatever authority.
The fact that NOT having children was an acceptable reason for a divorce, underscores the importance of having children, and the fact that it was a primary reason and perhaps the ONLY reason, to enter into a state of Marriage.
What I am saying is , It's not a good rule because the Church was behind it, it's the other way around. The Church was behind it because it was a good rule.
Similar to the prohibition against eating raw meat. Somebody earlier was denigrating Church rules in general and this was one example. Thoroughly cooking your meat is still a good idea today, in ancient times, with no medical care or cleanliness standards, it was an EXCEPTIONALLY good idea.
Just because the Church put forth the rule does not make it a "moral" issue.
In many areas, the Church was the only long-term repository of information and had the only people who could read and write. Prohibitions from the Church somewhat automatically take on a "moral" tone, but are often totally unrelated to any morality and are just good sense.
To say something was a "sin" was the most effective way to get people to stop doing it.
For instance, the local religious institutions were likely the first ones to develop an understanding that sleeping with your sister often resulted in children with serious defects. So they defined sleeping with your sister as a Sin against God.
If "marriage" is a constitutional issue, then so is divorce, IMO they come under the same umbrella of definition.
Quote: Long-term committment alone, horsecrap. I asked the question before, and here it is again. Why? Why do we care if two people stay together a long time?
Why do we care if Joe Schmo and his wife have kids? Hell, why do we care if Joe Schmo and Phil Doe want to get married?
To answer your question, we care about the relationship of commitment as a society. You ignored my point about intestacy, but our society recognizes a long-term permanent committed relationship in probate laws. If you are married and die intestate, all of your property passes to your spouse. By the way, this is regardless of whether or not you have children.
Quote: If they have children, there is a reason and societal benefit. No children, no real benefit to long-term committment.
Societal benefit? In some cases, but I don't know how much "benefit" an extremely poor couple's 14 kids on welfare and social security benefit society. Besides, why does marriage need to be for the sake of society's benefit. I'm pretty sure marriage is a relationship between two (or 3 people religiously) which just so happens to be recognized by the state. The way our system works, the married couple receives the benefits (taxes, etc.).
Besides, your whole point is lost on one question: Do you consider a married couple without children, who can't have children, or who chose not to have children as not actually married? Don't point to the numbers on whether they're minorities. Answer the question. Are they not married?
Quote: Your children inheriting your property implies continuity. Your next-door-neighbor inheriting does not. Your spouse being next in line of succession is irrelevant and outside the bounds of the discussion, or off-topic.
How is it off-topic? Because it's a monkey wrench in your argument? The whole original discussion is why should homosexuals be allowed to get married. Inclusion in intestate succession is one answer to that question. Additionally, it does imply continuity.
Quote: The point was that your children come before the next-door neighbor. Blood ties.
Your spouse comes before your children. Not a blood tie.
Quote: I would bet that every father here, who has a trade or skill, has made some effort to teach that skill to his son. As a general rule, they have made little or no effort to teach that trade or skill to the children of the next-door-neighbor. Why?
The village grain-grinder or metal-worker would pass his knowledge down to his son, who would one day be known as Mr. Miller or Mr. Smith. Fathers named John or William would pass their skills and knowledge down to their children, whose surnames would one day be Johnson and Williamson.
When the village blacksmith or grain-grinder had no children, this valuable knowledge and skill was often lost, and the village suffered as a result.
For the ladies, surnames ending in "-dottir" are common in Scandinavian countries, but for some reason not in European countries or anywhere else, SFAIK. I have no idea why. Suggests a matriarchal society but I don't think this was the case.
You criticized me for being off-topic. I would just kindly ask you to go ahead and re-read this.
So to this point, I've played ball in your court. So to bring it back to the original discussion, what constitutional or legal precedent is there to say that two homosexuals should not get married.
In my topic with Joker, we discussed marriage as a civil right. I still believe it's a state issue because marriages are actually licensed from each state and recognized by each other state in full faith and credit. So I think the federal government oversteps its bounds, but he brought up a good point.
I looked it up and found the following quote from the Chief Justice of the SCOTUS in Loving v. Virginia:
Quote: Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.
This precedent has been tailored from the racial perspective and placed into the sexual orientation perspective in the recent debates, and it has been cited as precedent in recent state and federal court decisions.
That being said, what other valid legal or constitutional precedent exists that merits the idea that gays should not be married?
Blue ostriches on crack float on milkshakes between the sidewalk titans of gurglefitz. --YTown
The standard is not created by straight people, this is not an "us against them" issue. The standard is what thousands of years of history have evolved it to be, for good and significant reasons. Statistics would tell us that there were many gay people involved in the creation of those standards.
I agree the NBA analogy has flaws, ANY analogy by definition is different from the concept it is being compared to.
However, there are similarities. No one has any RIGHT to be an NBA player, there is no automatic discrimination if any individual is not granted membership in the group. You do not HAVE to be over 6; tall to be in the NBA, it is not an absolute rule. Virtually everyone in the NBA has that qualification, and someone without it is unlikely to gain entry. There is no absolute rule that says you have to be able to dribble and run at the same time, but again, someone without that ability is unlikely to become an NBA player.
Simply denying someone entry into a group, any group, does not mean that there is some discrimination issue. Many groups, associations, clubs, organizations, etc have basic requirements for membership. Some of these are, in fact racially or otherwise discriminatory, but many of them are not.
Mensa, and the Golden Key National Honor Society, have specific requirements to become a member of the group. Fulfill them, and you are allowed in. Fail to fulfill them, and you are not. This would fit the dictionary definition of "discrimination" in that they see a difference and make a choice based on that difference. However, it is not a racial or group thing involving a civil rights issue.
Now, if the NBA was a bunch of guys down at the local public gym, and they didn't let me in to the building, then this might be a civil rights issue. But it is not, there is no public ownership of the NBA. They set their requirements as they see fit, for good and definable reasons.
The state of Marriage does have some elements of "public ownership" in that, as a State-recognized condition, we all set the requirements for entry into the group. In order to do that, a reasonable first course of action is to determine what marriage is, what the requirements should be, if any, and what the purpose for having such a group distinction is, in the first place.
i have offered multiple examples as to how the requirements and purposes of marriage have come into being. I have asked, numerous times, for the reader to offer alternates, or to explain why certain conditions may, or may not, be important.
Marriage does not exist and was not created for the purpose of making people feel better about themselves. It, and the rules and customs concerning it, evolved for very specific purposes and to solve or address very specific social conditions.
Some of those reasons and conditions are no longer valid in modern times. However, many if not most still are. Gay people do not fulfill them. This does not make them lesser human beings, nor does it involve issues of homophobia. It is a simple disagreement as to what "marriage" is, has been, and/or should be.
It is not necessary that EVERYONE have children, but SOMEBODY certainly needs to. If NOBODY does, well, the problem goes away.
As for the spouse and inheritance, this simply delays the issue a few more years. When the spouse is also dead, and there are no children, where is the continuity? I don't mean for 5-10 years, but long-term as in multiple generations. The insertion of the spouse into the issue makes no real change. Just a temporary delay.
The paragraph about fathers passing skills down to their sons is an illustration of the continuity I am talking about. Many of these skills were closely guarded secrets, "family heirlooms", more or less. Marriage created conditions that were more likely to see to it that these important skills were not lost, as they very often were, with dire consequences. The Scandinavian bit was to redress the male-centric statements in an attempt at fairness.
Thank you very much for the SCOTUS quote. "Marriage is fundamental to our very existence and survival." Now, how and why would that be? You know the answer. Is Gay Marriage "fundamental to our very existence and survival"?
Further, the opinion does not say that no one can be denied the right to marry. It says that no one can be denied that right, "on an unsupportable basis".
If a man and a woman marry, is it POSSIBLE that they could do something "fundamental to our very existence and survival"? Can a same-sex couple do that? Desires can change, medical conditions can change, new procedures can be developed. At least one X, and at least one Y, are required to fulfill the conditions necessary to be "fundamental to our very existence and survival".
Two X's, or two Y's, are nice and wonderful and makes people feel good and causes sunshine and daffodils everywhere. Makes Unicorns dance. A good time shall be enjoyed by all. BUT, it is NOT "fundamental to our very existence and survival".
Quote: "Creating my own league", would represent the use of Civil Unions, which is apparently unacceptable.
Only the label of NBA player is acceptable.
No analogy, other than the original situation, will be exactly the same as the original situation. The idea is to focus on the similarities rather than the differences.
Creating your own league can also be seen as creating a new standard of marriage.
The "end game", pun intended, is still marriage basketball.
You want to play in the NBA. Anyone who decides that what they want is to be is an NBA star is permitted to lead a life devoted to achieving that goal of basketball equality.
There are no laws that claim you do not have permission to become an NBA player. There are conditions which you may never meet, like height or skill, but no laws.
There are some who don't meet the conditions to procreate, maybe they dribble too much or can no longer find the basket, but they are still very much allowed to marry and quite often they do it for financial and security reasons.
So the ability to procreate should not be used as a standard for marriage.
Quote: Is Gay Marriage fundamental to our very existence and survival?
If we wish to honor the principles we stand for as a country, I'd say so. Our country lives and dies on guaranteeing each American citizen equal rights. Granted the constitution was written to only include WASPs but throughout the years other American citizens have gained the same civil rights.
Quote: At least one X, and at least one Y, are required to fulfill the conditions necessary to be "fundamental to our very existence and survival".
I don't see how reproducing is the necessary condition to be fundamental member of American society.
Quote: Hot DAMN it is a good day in Nelsonville.
Uhm, is this you?
I'd like to know your answer to a simple question. Is there a good reason, barring any sort of religious dogma, why two consenting adults who love each other should not be allowed to marry?
From the last comment you made, I think I can safely answer PDR's question and infer that you really just don't like to admit when you're wrong. The problem with that is that you will back yourself into an indefensible corner, as you have in this thread. Clinging onto something for the sake of being competitive really doesn't help anyone. I'm just trying to level with you here, man.
As far as the argument goes, you left a couple of my questions unanswered.
Also, you point to the passage of marriage being fundamental to our existence and survival, but completely ignore the mention of marriage as a fundamental freedom. Furthermore, this case has already been used as precedence for homosexuals arguing for their right to be married. For example, Judge Walker of the Northern District of California stated the following:
Quote: the [constitutional] right to marry protects an individual's choice of marital partner regardless of gender
Moreover, the portion of the ruling that you chose to underscore also has one fundamental problem: marriage does not need to exist for our survival. I'm pretty sure people could have kids outside of marriage...
As far as the debate goes. I think things need to just be put back in perspective from all the tangents about Scandanavia and whatnot.
Here are the inalienable truths:
1. Marriage exists without children. 2. There are married couples who are unable to have children. 3. Homosexual couples can and have adopted children. 4. The federal and state laws give the same provide the same status to both adopted and natural birth children. 5. Having children may be a purpose for getting married. As our government recognizes, it is not THE purpose since our states and government and society recognize marriages where no children are conceived.
You have placed the bounds of your argument in history and tradition, possibly even religion. But when all personal ideals, morality, religion, etc. is removed, it boils down to this central issue: should homosexuals be allowed to be married?
Our country's laws and licenses pertaining to a person's ability to marry have nothing to do with children. Absolutely nothing.
Our country's laws on marriage do pertain to tax benefits, community property considerations in several states, passing of property and assets in intestacy, and a host of other things.
Hell, don't forget the fact there are some jurisdictions that actually have common law marriage. So, on one hand we have people who are considered married even if they don't want to be, while on the other hand, we have people who want to be married that we disallow....
So I'll ask you again: a gay couple lives together, but is prohibited from getting married. One of the couple dies intestate. You don't think the surviving partner (who cares about the property as I believe you put it) should inherit the decedent's property? You originally brought up the passing of property, which I think is an excellent argument for the allowance of gay marriage. It is also one that is actually relevant to the construction of our current laws.
Blue ostriches on crack float on milkshakes between the sidewalk titans of gurglefitz. --YTown
I'd like to know your answer to a simple question. Is there a good reason, barring any sort of religious dogma, why two consenting adults who love each other should not be allowed to marry?
Wait, first, are these two consenting adults basketball players?
Two X's, or two Y's, are nice and wonderful and makes people feel good and causes sunshine and daffodils everywhere. Makes Unicorns dance. A good time shall be enjoyed by all. BUT, it is NOT "fundamental to our very existence and survival".
So basically by YOUR arguments, no post-menopause women should be allowed to get married or even remarried as the "sole purpose of marriage is procreate for our very existence and survival." Nor should any couple who do not want children should be allowed to get married. So all marriages with either partner getting sterilized(tubes tied or vascetomy) that do not have kids should be nullified. Nor should any person who is not capable of bearing children or creating children should be allowed to marry. If that is the case, where is the outrage of these people getting married? There is none.
Marriage as a purpose of procreation is a construct based on religion. Only religion requires marriage to occur before the act of procreation. This tradition of getting married to procreate is a tradition based on religion. If you want to live somewhere based on religion, then you should find a country based on religion. The United States was not a country founded based on religion, regardless of how many people want to believe that. It was founded on the basis of freedom of religion which allows you to practice your own religion, which also means that other people do not need to follow your exact beliefs and can go worship Satan if they so desire.
You keep using the basis of tradition and history as your argument and that holds absolutely no hold. You are just pouring water into a colander and hoping that it actually holds it. History and tradition has no bearing on unjust laws. Just because it has been tradition throughout history, it does not allow it to overrule our Constitution that gives people rights. If marriage grants rights to partners and you outlaw marriage to certain groups of people, then you are infringing on these certain people's rights. Personally, the government should stay out of marriage to begin with, and if there is any institution they should use is civil unions. If you want to get married, fine, but you don't get any benefits from that from the gov't until you are granted a civil union.
But I really do not understand why so many people have problems with who can marry who as it does not affect them besides getting insulted by the thought of someone partaking in something that THEY do not approve of. Why does it matter so much that Tom and Jerry can get married? How does that infringe your rights? How does it even weaken YOUR marriage as some many want to ban gay marriage in the defense of their marriage? How are your rights being infringed upon by Tom and Jerry getting married??
"Don't be burdened by regrets or make your failures an obsession or become embittered or possessed by ruined hopes"
So what exactly is it about marriage that is "fundamental to our very existence and survival"?
In case you missed it, that quote is from the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States.
On a side note, apparently I will not be able to verify phil's false statement about sending me PMs, at least from a mod. I have screen shots showing the total received, and also showing that number of messages, none of which are from phil. I am unable to verify how deletions, or the lack thereof, can be verified. I would suspect that the total received number on the first page is accurate, but I do not know this to be true. Can anyone verify this, or perhaps the version of software the board is using? I'll see if I can verify the accuracy of the PM count from the software specs, if necessary.
Anyone who would like the screen shots, send me a PM with an email and I will send them. Anybody other than phil, or I guess I could create a temporary email account for that purpose. But then, he knows he made a false statement, or maybe he really doesn't.
If having another user login with my information to verify would be preferable, I would be happy to offer this as well. I would suggest the requesters provide a short list of reputable individuals, IMO the first name on most lists would be my first choice, as well.
Getting a copy of my ACT or SAT scores will cost me about $32.00, if anyone is interested I will provide these under the same conditions as above. Haven't checked on the ASVAB and don't know who sponsored the various IQ tests I have taken. Never joined Mensa and the Golden Key folks. The first does not send out requests to join, SFAIK, but the second one did, based on college performance.
Oh, and one more note, I am not crazy, my mother had me tested. Don't have any verification for this.
Oh, yes, I was told to make the following reply to phil, Nuh-uh. Thought I should offer something a little more concrete to go along with that, seems remarkably ineffective.
Quote: Mensa, and the Golden Key National Honor Society, have specific requirements to become a member of the group. Fulfill them, and you are allowed in. Fail to fulfill them, and you are not. This would fit the dictionary definition of "discrimination" in that they see a difference and make a choice based on that difference. However, it is not a racial or group thing involving a civil rights issue.
Nelson, the reason most of your analogies that I have read fall apart is quite simple.. you keep comparing something a person is... black, white, male, female, gay, straight, tall, short... with something a person can become with hard work like smarter, a better basketball player, etc. If a group sets a standard that everybody is free to compete to achieve and some do and some don't, then that is NOT the definition of discrimination... the definition of discrimination is denying somebody an opportunity because of something they cannot change or cannot achieve with enough hard work.
I have heard almost all of your arguments before.. can honestly say I've never heard the one about passing down trades though... and for a long time I believed and recited most of them just like you are... over time I have come to realize that most of those arguments are rather foolish as they relate to the discussion of the government recognizing gay marriage...
My favorite, it's going to ruin the institution of marriage... I'm pretty sure that the 50% divorce rate, spousal abuse rate, single parent home rate, and any number of other factors can be used to prove that as an "institution", heterosexuals have pretty much already crushed the integrity of "the institution".
You have been asked a lot of questions and I will give you credit because you have at least attempted to answer most of them... but I have one and forgive me if it has already been asked because I didn't read the whole thread...
If Jim and Bob or Sally and Jane are allowed to get married and not have kids.. how does that affect you? What is it exactly that you are afraid is going to happen?
I go to church every Sunday, I have stated that I would not attend a church that performed gay weddings because I personally believe it to be a sin and I wouldn't join a church that endorsed any sins... (keeping in mind that people who sin and a church that actually endorses those sins are two completely different things)... but we aren't really talking about the church, we are talking about the state... so I get why a church wouldn't endorse or perform gay marriage, but why shouldn't the state recognize it?
Is the term "marriage" a religious term or a legal one? It cannot be both for they are at odds with each other.
"Marriage" as a religious term cannot or at least should not be infringed upon by a government. That is a union between two people within their relationship with their God according to their beliefs. Government has nothing to do with it. Much like the fight of Catholics against being forced to pay for contraceptives and abortions in health plans...Forcing religions to acknowledge gay marriages is in the same light. However, IF your religion allows for gay marriage, then by all means do so....but do not expect to be considered married by other faiths. Again...it is a RELIGIOUS term in this context. It is a commitment to each other and your God according to your beliefs. That is definitely something two gay people would want to marry for. And if your faith does not condone homosexual marriage...then your problem is with your faith.You must either choose a new faith or never marry.
"Marriage" as a legal term is a whole different story. Because Money is involved. Taxes, benefits, inheritances, etc. all of which everyone, including the Government, wants their share. Many in Government don't care either way how this goes. They will try to play the votes as best they can. In fact the longer this is an issue the longer they can play it out and look sympathetic to either side. So they win if it is drawn out. However, the budget implications on Social Security, and other Benefits could become skewed and pressured...and I am not talking about those trying to fraud. But for 73 years we have been paying out benefits in a specific way and we have bankrupted that system...Now we will add a whole new demographic to that system. In any case tho, marriage as a legal term means that legally we can contribute and receive in those benefits and legal obligations. And I can see why two people would want to get married for that reason as well.
But the terms are different and people are trying to use them as the same. And I think that is a BIGGER issue for me than anything else. Personally I think we should strip marriage completely from the legal dictionary. Then if the government wants to track and promote the legal aspects of this...they can call it something else. Call it Civil Union..Call it Spaghetti Miracle if you want.... But THEN the Government can decide what rules apply to the Spaghetti Miracle...they can say Yes. 2 gay people ( or 2 straight people) can have a Spaghetti Miracle in the eyes of the State. Everyone will check "Spaghetti Miracle" on their IRS forms.....And if 2 gay people want to get "Married".....they can take it up with their faith.
I thought I was wrong once....but I was mistaken...
What's the use of wearing your lucky rocketship underpants if nobody wants to see them????
First, let me state, I have no problem with your personal beliefs. I am a church going Christian, part of the Praise Team band in the church. But I believe my purpose here is to be a witness to others about my salvation. Not force them to believe as I do, but to allow them to come to a conclussion on their own, through God's grace.
But what you are basically trying to do is apply law based on your beliefs. Why should your personal beliefs be imposed and not that of the Aryan Nation, Jews, Mormans, Jehova Witnesses, the local pub regulars, etc.
We can't even get all the religions to open a bible and interpret it alike.
We don't have to agree with each other, to respect each others opinion.
I see what you're saying, but we're talking about it from a state perspective, so the religious interpretations are inapplicable.
I'm not sure from reading your post if you were trying to make this argument or not, but I don't think the flaws of the financial system should determine whether or not people should be allowed to marry.
Blue ostriches on crack float on milkshakes between the sidewalk titans of gurglefitz. --YTown
Quote: I'm not sure from reading your post if you were trying to make this argument or not, but I don't think the flaws of the financial system should determine whether or not people should be allowed to marry.
No simply stating that there ARE implications......and politicians being politicians....well make your own conclusions....
I thought I was wrong once....but I was mistaken...
What's the use of wearing your lucky rocketship underpants if nobody wants to see them????
I disagree that the religious interpretations are inapplicable....I think they are at the heart of the discussion....if they were not....then there would not be a discussion. The whole "Man and Woman" moral concept is a religious interpretation.
I thought I was wrong once....but I was mistaken...
What's the use of wearing your lucky rocketship underpants if nobody wants to see them????
The comment from the Chief Justice agrees completely and specifically with my main point. The opinion does not directly contradict a Northern California judge, but it is certainly from a higher authority.
I already answered your question about the spouse inheriting. Yes. I also asked you one, what happens next?
The word "survival" to me, is a long-term concept, not talking about the next 20 minutes but about the next 200 years. Having children is necessary.
Yes, you can have children outside of "marriage". BUT, as I have already discussed, having those children within the unit of a long-term, man-woman bond is the best way to raise those children to be contributing members of society. Are there other options, yes, can they sometimes be better, yes, but on the whole, for the vast majority, long-term man-woman bonded unit is Better.
If you have a house, business, or piece of farmland, are you MORE likely or LESS likely to take better care of it, for the long-term, if you have children to pass it down to. Is your view of Society as a whole more likely to be one of a long-term, as in your concerns do not end when you are dead, because you have descendants? If you have no descendants, are you not More Likely to have no concern whatsoever about property or society as a whole, after you are dead?
We have a societal interest in first, children being born, and second, that they be raised to the greatest extent possible to be contributing members of society. IMO, this is fundamental to our very existence and survival. The first requires a man and a woman, the second is best done that way.
Is there any disagreement with the above paragraph, and that paragraph alone?
It is necessary, without exception, for men and women to get together and procreate. I don't think there is any argument here, but I may be surprised.
That the same pair should be bonded together for the duration of the offspring's childhood is not mandatory, but is the best way to create contributing members of our society. We could just let them all run loose in the streets, but that is, IMO, a bad idea. Any disagreement?
The pair bonding can be done in any number of ways. What we call it and how it is done do not really matter. However, we can, do, and must in someway recognize, approve, and foster that bond. More pairs and longer bonding are important.
To introduce into that pair bonding a Different type of pair bond, one that cannot produce children by definition, is to me a re-defining of that bond. A lessening of it's importance, or "sanctity" if you will, that does not help to keep the long-term bond together.
The blending of families and bloodlines, both in the bond itself and in the children produced, fosters long-term stability of the entire society. It unites more people into the group.
Each and every individual is valuable. Every single one of them. Each of them has unique genetic traits, which are special to that person. The fact that men and women are often attracted to people very different from themselves is not by accident, and some studies have shown that people consciously or sub-consciously seek out partners whose genetic traits complement their own weaknesses. The act of procreating is also an act of improving the human race.
When any person fails to procreate, their uniqueness is forever lost to us. It will never be seen again. Each is free to decide this on his or her own, but to decide to not do so is to decide that everything that you are, will die with you.
It is not only genetic uniqueness but knowledge, skills and abilities that are passed on to our descendants. Once again, this can happen under other circumstances but the best way, on the whole, is for a long-term man-woman pair bond to do this with their mutually created, biological children.
"Marriage" is a word that we use to describe that long-term, man-woman pair bond. The existence of the bond came long before the existence of the word. The debate, to me, is not about what "marriage" means but the importance of that bond.
We could call it "bob", the name does not matter. If two people want to get together, fine, but a same-sex couple is not a long-term man-woman pair bond. If we call the latter "bob" then the former is something else.
To diminish the importance of the long-term, man-woman pair bond is something we should not do. The degree of importance imparted to the bond is a factor in it remaining in place, long-term. The bond should be long-term for the children, and the children help keep it long-term. It is a mutually re-enforcing cycle.
That there are pair bonds that do not produce children does not provide much of a reduction in the nature of the bond. However, when you begin to introduce pair bonds into the mix of a nature that are not at least Designed for procreation, IMO this leads to a lessening of the importance with which the bond is viewed, in general.
We are already seeing the consequences of this with the increased divorce rate and number of single-parent households. Yes, single parents can do well, but statistics tell us that children in such households are more likely to become societal problems. We have made divorce easier, in the name of freedom, equality, and rights, and in doing so we have made our society a more dangerous place that is less likely to survive.
Short-term freedoms are nice, but long-term survival is better. Or maybe not, there are those who insist that we keep making Social Security payments until we are driven into an economic collapse that will make the Great Depression look like Fun Day at Disneyland. There are still a lot of people calling me wrong or crazy for that one, too, but over the last 30 years or so the percentage has gone down dramatically.
IMO, the notion that everybody should get what they want, just because they want it, and to Hades with the consequences, is the root of the problem. Fair and Equal are not always the only answers, or even the best ones.
Quote: Yes, single parents can do well, but statistics tell us that children in such households are more likely to become societal problems. We have made divorce easier, in the name of freedom, equality, and rights, and in doing so we have made our society a more dangerous place that is less likely to survive.
You can take your statistics back to Nelsonland. I and my sister, among many others, are products of a single parent and eventually remarried household. By no means do I ever believe I diverged into a degenerate because my mother divorced my father.
If you really think children of single parent households are dangerous to society...
The short answer is that I'm right and they're wrong.
The long version is that my opinion is based on long-term, historical data as well as more recent studies. It is based IMO on facts and not desires, considered in relation to the entire pool of knowledge available.
GENERAL QUESTION - This is a Hypothetical, I am NOT saying that this will happen. - EDIT: I have substituted Apple Butter for another term. - Just suppose - Apple Butter becomes legal. 50 years down the road, society has gone to hell in a handbasket and everything is coming totally unglued, and Apple Butter is identified with certainty as one of the major causes of our destruction, or THE major cause.
Would anyone then vote to make people unhappy, but save civilization, by making it illegal? Or would you vote to make people free and happy, but all dead fairly soon?
Is the continued existance of society more important than individual freedom and happiness, or less important?
) doesn't even come close. 
![[Linked Image from i.imgur.com]](http://i.imgur.com/FUKyw.png)
