Supreme Court likely to advance gay marriage but stop short of broad ruling
By Pete Williams, Justice Correspondent, NBC News
After two days of highly anticipated courtroom arguments about same-sex marriage, a sweeping ruling on gay rights seems unlikely from the U.S. Supreme Court. But when decisions in both cases come in late June, the result may nonetheless be an important one for advocates of same-sex marriage.
The Supreme Court appeared ready to strike down the Defense of Marriage Act during Wednesday's oral arguments but it was a different story for Prop. 8 with Justices signaling that they may take a narrow approach to avoid setting a national precedent on the issue of same-sex marriage. California Attorney General Kamala Harris discusses.
Though it's risky to predict how the court will rule based solely on comments by the justices during the oral arguments, one outcome seemed probable -- a decision striking down the Defense of Marriage Act.
"A decision saying that DOMA is unconstitutional because it discriminates against people based on their sexual orientation, and requiring the federal government to give full recognition to the existing marriages of same-sex couples, would be a huge victory," said Paul Smith of the Washington, D.C., law firm of Jenner & Block.
He was in the courtroom when the justices took up the Proposition 8 case on March 26. Ten years earlier to the day, Smith stood before the justices to argue the case of Lawrence v. Texas, which invalidated state laws criminalizing homosexual conduct.
In the challenge to California's Prop 8 -- the state constitutional amendment enacted by voters in 2008 that limits marriage to one-man-one-woman couples -- the justices seemed to be searching for a way to avoid a decision. One possible outcome: declaring the case procedurally flawed and sending it back to California, where a lower court decision found Prop 8 unconstitutional. That would allow same-sex marriage to resume there without setting a precedent for other states.
During Wednesday's argument on DOMA, by contrast, at least four of the justices suggested that the law improperly discriminates against gay couples by blocking the federal government from recognizing same-sex marriages in the states that permit them.
Elena Kagan read from a House report that said Congress passed DOMA to express its "moral disapproval of homosexuality." Ruth Bader Ginsburg said the 1,100 federal benefits denied to same-sex couples water down their relationships to "skim-milk marriages."
Rodell Mollineau, president of American Bridge and former spokesman to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, Washington Post political reporter Nia-Malika Henderson and National Review's Washington, D.C. editor and CNBC contributor Robert Costa join The Daily Rundown to talk about the same-sex marriage debate and give their shameless plugs.
Sonia Sotomayor asked if members of Congress could create any "class of people they don't like" and deny them benefits. Stephen Breyer asked what justification would permit treating gay marriages differently.
The fifth vote to strike down DOMA seemed likely to come from Anthony Kennedy, whose comments throughout the argument reflected a concern that Congress had no authority to define marriage, a power reserved to the states.
Former solicitor general Paul Clement, representing the House Republicans who came forward to defend DOMA, said the law was proper because it dealt only with the government's own definition of marriage in federal laws. For that reason, he said, the question of federal power was "not a DOMA problem."
Justice Kennedy disagreed. "I think it is a DOMA problem. The question is whether or not the federal government, under our federalism scheme, has the authority to regulate marriage," he said.
Kennedy said DOMA was "not consistent with the historic commitment of marriage, and of questions of the rights of children, to the states."
Even if Justice Kennedy's focus on the limits of federal power constrains the court's ruling in the DOMA case, avoiding a full-throated declaration that discrimination based on sexual orientation is unconstitutional, advocates of gay rights say it would still send a powerful message.
"I think it's enormous," said Mary Bonauto of GLAD, a pioneer in gay rights litigation, of the possibility that DOMA would be struck down.
"This is a law that has the effect of discriminating only against married same-sex couples. And anytime you eliminate a double standard based on sexual orientation, it matters," she said.
And Paul Smith of Jenner & Block says such a decision could lay the groundwork for future legal challenges to state laws that forbid same-sex couples to marry.
"While it's not the same thing as requiring states to let people get married, it will push the momentum forward," he said, and could have an effect on lawsuits now pending that challenge bans on same-sex marriage in Hawaii, Illinois, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico and Oklahoma.
The title pretty much says it all, IMO. I don't think the court is coming to come down with anything earth-shattering. I think some of the opposing justices were the ones who voted to hear this - they know the case will be lost, and the longer the wait, the worse it will be.
I would expect DOMA to be gone, which will be a big step, but I don't think there's going to be a resounding move one way or the other. It will probably be kicked back to states.
So, I haven't really followed this too closely, as I'm not a big fan of intolerance and lack compassion for your fellow human beings. We are talking about getting married in a church right, not civil unions? A marriage recognized by the church?
Common sense says the gays have a right, nationwide, to be awarded the benefits given to heterosexual couples. Please tell me we don't have Americans looking to deny civil unions.
Quote: We are talking about getting married in a church right, not civil unions? A marriage recognized by the church?
Not quite.
We are talking about state or federally recognized marriage.
Even a landslide victory for gay rights advocates in this situation wouldn't entail a church being forced to marry someone in their domain.
But again, I don't think these two cases are going to blow the door open one way or another. If I had to guess, I'd say they strike DOMA,:but kick the rest down to the states.
Quote: Common sense says the gays have a right, nationwide, to be awarded the benefits given to heterosexual couples. Please tell me we don't have Americans looking to deny civil unions.
In many cases, civil unions, don't really award the same benefits, economically and in terms of other matters pertaining to one's life.
And they're not all that prevalent at this time, state-wise, though I don't think much will happen on that front, as gay marriage will most likely be legalized federally within the next five years or so.
Quote: Even a landslide victory for gay rights advocates in this situation wouldn't entail a church being forced to marry someone in their domain.
So if the issue of forcing a church to marry a gay couple was brought before the court would it be the religious freedom rights of gays v the religious freedom rights of the church?
Would a court be allowed to decide a case like that?
The justices are incredibly conflicted about kicking it back to the states. Both sides of the court talked about this a lot. Mainly boils down to "If we don't make a sweeping change across the country, we'll keep getting these cases" or "Do we even have the power, from the constitution, to make this mandated for all states". A small minority on the court seems to want to keep DOMA. The majority of them seem to be against it.
Personally, I don't see the problem with two consenting adults joining each other in marriage. I'm not sure why gender really matters. The whole "sanctity of marriage" argument holds no water due to the divorce rate in America.
I get religions have their own beliefs. But, many things exist in America which are against others religious belief. People can eat pork, Americans eat meat during Lent, etc. The touchy part comes down to same-sex marriages in churches which don't believe in same-sex marriage. Religious freedom is paramount to our country but isn't non-discriminatory practices a foundation of our country, too? (Sure, you can argue The Framers didn't believe women, slaves, the underclass and people of other color never deserved the same rights but that's a different discussion for another topic.)
Quote: Even a landslide victory for gay rights advocates in this situation wouldn't entail a church being forced to marry someone in their domain.
So if the issue of forcing a church to marry a gay couple was brought before the court would it be the religious freedom rights of gays v the religious freedom rights of the church?
Would a court be allowed to decide a case like that?
I would imagine that at some point down the line, you may see a few lawsuits in that regard, but I don't think they would get very far, and I don't think it would become a prevalent issue.
A gay couple would have no basis for an argument on the grounds of religious freedom. A church or religion would.
Hell, a church doesn't have to marry a straight couple in their domain if they don't want to.
OK, I am no lawyer ..... so bear with me while I run through this fairly convoluted mess of things running through my head.
If I am reading things correctly, then the following assumptions appear to be headed for affirmation by the Court ......
The Federal Government has no right and/or ability to regulate and/or decide what marriage is, or is not.
Since marriage is a state rights issue, then each state has to decide for itself what constitutes marriage, and what laws define marriage.
If gay marriage is not a protected right under the Constitution at the federal level, will it be Constitutionally protected at the state level?
If it is a Constitutionally protected right at the state level, then why run through the inevitable 50 court cases, with Supreme Court appeal certainty?
This seems like a massive kicking the can down the road, with massive resources involved in defending state Constitutions and laws, which would be senseless if the Court says that gay marriage is a right protected under the Constitution.
However, on the other hand, if the Supreme Court rules that the federal government cannot regulate marriage, and it is a states rights issue ... and that each state's Constitution is the overriding and controlling document for what marriage is, and is not, in each state ...... then the various propositions and amendments might be Constitutional ..... and we might have 50 different definitions of marriage, and maybe a 50/50 mis of states who allow/disallow gay marriage.
This appears to be quite a mess, and growing. I am at the point where they would just decide and be done with it.Either gay marriage is a right in all 50 states ..... or it is not. This mix and match mess we have today is ridiculous.
Quote: Just another hugel voting block the liberals have created.
I wonder who in the heck is watching "The Bible" on the History channel, supposidly there were 10 million viewers?
Yeah because Liberals "created" the gay population
Besides that, what the Bible says should have absolutely nothing to do with what The Supreme Court Rules. There is no place for legislation of morality in The Supreme Court.
Quote: Just another hugel voting block the liberals have created.
Are you serious about any of this? Or is this to get a rise out of people?
First and foremost, DOMA was brought about by the GOP. The Democrats didn't really have it on their radar. And they had no qualms about it. Clinton signed it.
This issue was really brought to the forefront even further by the GOP, most effectively by Karl Rove. It was used as a wedge issue that would bring out religious voters. It was a very astute and effective measure.
Say what you will about your opinions or feelings on the matter, but it's primarily the GOP that has driven the issue into the spotlight. They wanted it there, as for a long time it was an electoral tool to their advantage.
As time has gone on, the political clout has begun to shift.
Say what you will about the voting bloc, but it was energized and brought into the spotlight by the GOP. This has been their issue since the mid-1990's.
In the end, they all deserve a great deal of scorn. No side has really been out there on the issue of gay rights until it became politically viable to do so.
All of this 'my opinion has changed over time' stuff ... it can be understood to an extent, because we all grow and change and mature ... but most of it is just snakes in the grass. If tomorrow, it wasn't politically viable, most would have a change of heart' again.
I cannot for the life of me see why this is even an issue. Two people wish to love and cherish each other. Why is that even debatable? What the heck does anyone care for? It's two people. Plain and simple. In this day and age, we are still worrying about how we can discriminate against someone for any reason? Seriously?
Ugh....
Let people marry whomever they choose. They have every right to be as miserable as the rest of us.....
Quote: Are you serious about any of this? Or is this to get a rise out of people?
You'll have to excuse Nillcreek. He's been verklemmpt ever since Mittens lost the election after having his hopes raised by everyone on every type of media stream.
Quote: Just another hugel voting block the liberals have created.
Are you serious about any of this? Or is this to get a rise out of people?
First and foremost, DOMA was brought about by the GOP. The Democrats didn't really have it on their radar. And they had no qualms about it. Clinton signed it.
This issue was really brought to the forefront even further by the GOP, most effectively by Karl Rove. It was used as a wedge issue that would bring out religious voters. It was a very astute and effective measure.
Say what you will about your opinions or feelings on the matter, but it's primarily the GOP that has driven the issue into the spotlight. They wanted it there, as for a long time it was an electoral tool to their advantage.
As time has gone on, the political clout has begun to shift.
Say what you will about the voting bloc, but it was energized and brought into the spotlight by the GOP. This has been their issue since the mid-1990's.
In the end, they all deserve a great deal of scorn. No side has really been out there on the issue of gay rights until it became politically viable to do so.
All of this 'my opinion has changed over time' stuff ... it can be understood to an extent, because we all grow and change and mature ... but most of it is just snakes in the grass. If tomorrow, it wasn't politically viable, most would have a change of heart' again.
Quote: Two people sit before a judge, say the "I Do's" and the deal is sealed.
What do some old dudes and dudesses sitting there in black robes in DC have to do with who a person falls in love with.
Dudesses doesn't really work, I think it's old dudes and really ugly old chicks.
The men in the world need to step back and rethink this one a bit, well the men who prefer women and have kids need to. If the SC strikes down DOMA and the feds recognize same sex marriages, great for the gays they win the right to change the label and gain some federal benefits, but there may be a benefit for straight men.
With Prop 8, I'm all for states rights but this one can get messy. If people are married in a state that recognizes same sex marriage then move to a state that doesn't, are they no longer legally married? They are federally legal but not locally? How about their company(s), they may no longer have to recognize them as a couple and their benefit structure changes? Does it matter what state the company incorporates in? Or a plethora of other goodies that will cause your head to spin.
If the SC knocks down prop 8 straight men may finally have their day in court. Until now, straight men with kids have been on the losing side in divorce court. Courts will change though, they will now find themselves deciding children's fate from two fathers or two mothers or two whatever they're labeled. A court who now decides the fate of children from a heterosexual couple, in favor of the women, could be seen as discriminating against the man as being suitable for the role of custodial parent. For the most part men have felt discriminated against for a long time and it was the rare case where the man is awarded primary custody. Generally, she got the house and he got the shaft. Knocking down prop 8, in time, would give straight men a fighting chance for their kids.
If this is the tool that finally brings men's rights to the forefront in custody hearings, I'm all for it.
Quote: Just another hugel voting block the liberals have created.
Are you serious about any of this? Or is this to get a rise out of people?
First and foremost, DOMA was brought about by the GOP. The Democrats didn't really have it on their radar. And they had no qualms about it. Clinton signed it.
This issue was really brought to the forefront even further by the GOP, most effectively by Karl Rove. It was used as a wedge issue that would bring out religious voters. It was a very astute and effective measure.
Say what you will about your opinions or feelings on the matter, but it's primarily the GOP that has driven the issue into the spotlight. They wanted it there, as for a long time it was an electoral tool to their advantage.
As time has gone on, the political clout has begun to shift.
Say what you will about the voting bloc, but it was energized and brought into the spotlight by the GOP. This has been their issue since the mid-1990's.
In the end, they all deserve a great deal of scorn. No side has really been out there on the issue of gay rights until it became politically viable to do so.
All of this 'my opinion has changed over time' stuff ... it can be understood to an extent, because we all grow and change and mature ... but most of it is just snakes in the grass. If tomorrow, it wasn't politically viable, most would have a change of heart' again.
the lesbian/gay community pay their taxes just like every other american in this country.
i don't even see why this is an issue.
mill, if you don't support same-sex marriage, then you should support gays not paying taxes, seeing as though they don't get the same civil liberties as everyone else.
Quote: Are you serious about any of this? Or is this to get a rise out of people?
You'll have to excuse Nillcreek. He's been verklemmpt ever since Mittens lost the election after having his hopes raised by everyone on every type of media stream.
Oh my God, he's back from Weinerville (in disguise).
I have yet to see you enter into a constructive, intellectual debate with anyone on this board about your viewpoints. I don't see any legit point behind throwing zingers without constructively backing them up.
It makes no sense to make a comment then tell people it's not worth discussing....
Note 1(unrelated): I think we need to remind the new members that there are rules on this board. So far, I have seen masked profanity and now name calling.
Note 2(related):
California Prop 8 Issue:
I think the SCOTUS boots this one as there is an issue that it shouldn't have been at the court level to begin with, which means that gay marriage will be legal in California. The only other decisions I can see will only be good for gay marriage. I don't think they are going to rule that gay marriage can be banned in California. They are either going to boot it or rule it unconstitutional.
None of the arguments made against gay marriage were nothing but "my religion doesn't allow it." or "tradition is tradition and it should remain." Then there is the "marriage is for procreation" argument which was later to show the hypocritical nature of those arguing against gay marriage as they tried to say a couple of 50 year straight people could get married. But in the end, their arguments might have meant nothing considering that the standing of those arguing against gay marriage might not have any standing. There is no freedom of religion argument here to begin with as allowing gay marriage does not affect one's right to practice their religion as they do not need to recognize gay marriage whereas the gov't could.
DOMA:
I think this will come to in equal rights issue and it will get struck down. I haven't listened too much on this one to get any more detail.
Quote: For the same reason you don't identify yourself as clueless.
Why would it matter?
I would think if this issue were to be only discussed by non-hetero people it would have been solved decades...centuries ago.
It's a liberty you claim they shouldn't have. Are you speaking as an expert on gay and lesbian relationships?
Don't get yourself in a tizzy ,I was just asking. Wouldn't they be proud? You seem to be making a lot of defensive assumptions that show a lack of maturity.
I seriously doubt there are many gay or lesbians who gain their pride from their sexual orientation. Just like as a straight man my sexual orientation plays no role in my pride.
Quote: I seriously doubt there are many gay or lesbians who gain their pride from their sexual orientation. Just like as a straight man my sexual orientation plays no role in my pride.
gay pride Noun A sense of dignity and satisfaction in connection with the public acknowledgment of one's own homosexuality.
Edited....I see. Do you assume every gay person feels the need to have "gay pride"? Does every straight person have "straight pride"?
I think you have those people on both sides. You have the gay people that put those stupid rainbow flags all over their cars. You have straight people that put those stupid stick families on their rear windows. Then you have the majority of people that just live their lives and mind their own business.
It is not now ; nor has it ever been , a good idea to ram your values , morals, beliefs , politics, religion down the throat of others ! .. I realize that it it is " in Vogue " to question or even make light of the Founding Fathers ; But they set this Country up a certain way for a reason ...
Why is it necessary for the Federal Govt. to have such sweeping powers ?? If you don't like the way folks live down in Alabama , move to Vermont ! If you think Gun control is the way your State should go , move to NY .. This my way or the highway by both the left and right is killing us ( the Nation )
I must be a Dinosaurs : I'm all about individual and if need be States Rights ..
Why is it gays and lesbians never identify themselves in these discussions?
well, I'm straight and I identified myself as such right off the bat.
But I honestly don't see what difference it makes. Again, I still don't understand why we are even seeing this in the courts.
Do you dislike Gays and Lesbians? if so why? What business is it of yours who loves who? why do you or anyone else feel the need to stick their collective noses into their business.
Are you gonna respond or are you going to do what you've been doing since joining this board.. Make a comment then run and hide?
No one is arguing about who gay people can, or cannot love. The question is about marriage, and all rights that accompany marriage.
I maintain that I see no reason why gay couples should not have the right to enter into a union with all of the rights of marriage, but that marriage itself should maintain its traditional meaning.
The sad thing is that I bet that this type of law could pass in almost every state. Religious people have watched marriage become far more temporary than they would like overall, and do not want the tradition of marriage to be further eroded by changing it to mean something that it has never meant before. I bet that a civil union law would pass in a great number of states almost immediately. Some states would be resistant because of their own traditional beliefs, but they are not going to pass anything anyway. Many states on the fence regarding gay marriage would probably support civil unions. I support civil unions, with all rights and responsibilities of marriage, but without an implied religious aspect that almost every church, and most church going people would find unacceptable.
There are all kinds of words that hurt people depending on how they are used.
The infamous "N" word is one.
Like it or not, words have meaning. If the word marriage didn't have meaning, then religious people wouldn't fight for the traditional meaning of the word, and gay marriage supporters wouldn't care about being able to be "married" instead of joined, united, or whatever other word could be used.
You denounce people for wanting to hold onto a word because "it's just a word" ..... but you want to use the word as well. I honestly believe that if the emotional influence of the word "marriage" were removed, then we would already have civil unions, equal to marriage, but in a legal, but non-religious form, would already be allowed in many more states than gay marriage is currently legal in.
People who support gay marriage say it's just a word ..... but if that were the case, they would abandon "marriage" for something that far more people would support. In fact, with the movement by many younger people away from religions, maybe a civil union might be preferable to them than something that has a religious connotation, and even straight couples might decide to be "united" instead of "married:.
I'd be perfectly fine with the courts and government agencies recognizing all "marriages" as civil unions and basing benefits eligibility and legal rights on THAT status. Take the religious overtones out of the equation altogether and let's move on.
You didn't need to explain that to me Ytown,, I knew it was about Marriage and I still don't get why the courts are involved..
And, like you, I see no reason why two guys or two gals getting married is any different than a guy and a gal getting married.
Perhaps in the eyes of the Lord (or whoever you chose to worship) there could be a difference but we're talking legal here.
IMO, if a gay or lesbian couple aren't welcomed into the church of their choosing, then it's probably better they move to a different church.. Dunno if that's an acceptable answer to some. Myself, I don't wanna be where I'm not welcome or I won't be accepted for who I am.
So I'd find like minded or open minded churches or religions.
Quote: I'd be perfectly fine with the courts and government agencies recognizing all "marriages" as civil unions and basing benefits eligibility and legal rights on THAT status. Take the religious overtones out of the equation altogether and let's move on.
Hadn't thought of it that way, but yeah. I can see that.
Quote: There are all kinds of words that hurt people depending on how they are used.
I don't believe that words have power to hurt us. The "hurt" is something that comes from within ourselves depending on what meaning we have attached to those words. But a word is really just a thing. It holds zero power.
Quote: The infamous "N" word is one.
See above.
Quote: Like it or not, words have meaning.
Agreed, words have a definition.
Quote: If the word marriage didn't have meaning, then religious people wouldn't fight for the traditional meaning of the word, and gay marriage supporters wouldn't care about being able to be "married" instead of joined, united, or whatever other word could be used.
Have you even checked out the history of the word marriage?? "Religious" people didn't invent the word.
Quote: You denounce people for wanting to hold onto a word because "it's just a word" ..... but you want to use the word as well.
See above. It's a word that works for what it is. It doesn't bother me that ALL people could use the word. Seems it only bothers those that for some reason feel threatened by something within themselves.
Quote: I honestly believe that if the emotional influence of the word "marriage" were removed
So now you agree that words are just words and humans do the attaching of emotions to those words?
Quote: then we would already have civil unions, equal to marriage, but in a legal, but non-religious form, would already be allowed in many more states than gay marriage is currently legal in.
Why can't gay couples be married in religion?? You sure are putting a lot of your own restrictions on other peoples lives.
Quote: People who support gay marriage say it's just a word ..... but if that were the case, they would abandon "marriage" for something that far more people would support. In fact, with the movement by many younger people away from religions, maybe a civil union might be preferable to them than something that has a religious connotation, and even straight couples might decide to be "united" instead of "married:.
Sure. It is JUST A WORD. Like I said before, we all attach our own MEANING to it. You are welcome to yours, and I am welcome to mine. And, guess what, they don't even have to be similar. But the word didn't come from the Bible as far as my research suggests...so it doesn't belong to any one group.
Quote: There are all kinds of words that hurt people depending on how they are used.
I don't believe that words have power to hurt us. The "hurt" is something that comes from within ourselves depending on what meaning we have attached to those words. But a word is really just a thing. It holds zero power.
Quote: The infamous "N" word is one.
See above.
Quote: Like it or not, words have meaning.
Agreed, words have a definition.
Quote: If the word marriage didn't have meaning, then religious people wouldn't fight for the traditional meaning of the word, and gay marriage supporters wouldn't care about being able to be "married" instead of joined, united, or whatever other word could be used.
Have you even checked out the history of the word marriage?? "Religious" people didn't invent the word.
Quote: You denounce people for wanting to hold onto a word because "it's just a word" ..... but you want to use the word as well.
See above. It's a word that works for what it is. It doesn't bother me that ALL people could use the word. Seems it only bothers those that for some reason feel threatened by something within themselves.
Quote: I honestly believe that if the emotional influence of the word "marriage" were removed
So now you agree that words are just words and humans do the attaching of emotions to those words?
Quote: then we would already have civil unions, equal to marriage, but in a legal, but non-religious form, would already be allowed in many more states than gay marriage is currently legal in.
Why can't gay couples be married in religion?? You sure are putting a lot of your own restrictions on other peoples lives.
Quote: People who support gay marriage say it's just a word ..... but if that were the case, they would abandon "marriage" for something that far more people would support. In fact, with the movement by many younger people away from religions, maybe a civil union might be preferable to them than something that has a religious connotation, and even straight couples might decide to be "united" instead of "married:.
Sure. It is JUST A WORD. Like I said before, we all attach our own MEANING to it. You are welcome to yours, and I am welcome to mine. And, guess what, they don't even have to be similar. But the word didn't come from the Bible as far as my research suggests...so it doesn't belong to any one group.
by Pamela Rose Williams on August 9, 2011 · The earliest use of the English word “marriage” dates back to the 13th century [1]. Marriage by God’s design is the union of one man and one woman (Genesis 2:18). Some say that it is the ceremony (wedding) that makes the man and woman married; God’s word tells us that it is the joining of flesh that makes the marriage (Genesis 2:24). Here are twenty great Scripture quotes about marriage.
Hosea 2:19 And I will betroth you to me forever. I will betroth you to me in righteousness and in justice, in steadfast love and in mercy. God’s Plan for Marriage
Genesis 1:27-28 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. And God blessed them. And God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over every living thing that moves on the earth.”
Meaning young woman --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Roots MARRY is from Latin maritus (married), from Indo-European “root” mari (young woman). M-R for a young man of MARRIAGE age is among the oldest and most universal words known to historical linguists – see below.
נערה N[Ah'RaH (young woman - Genesis24:14). No offense, but there is a MORON/MARRIAGE connection – see MORON.
Branches MARRY is linked to Altaic miarra (marry a man), majr (man, young male) in Nostratic, mjr and mr (man) in Asiatic, and mer-io (young man) in Indo-European. A נער Na'[A]R, young man (of marriagable age – Genesis 22:12) is a nasal shift M/N away. Only the Edenic young man/young woman word explains why the AHD has feminie words, while research in other language superfamilies focus on the masculine.
MARITAL is a cognate of MARRY. The boy and girl nasal-liquid words infer a young man or woman of marriageable age. That age used to be much younger than post-graduate school age.
MAY is from Old Norse maer (girl). NA'AR(OOT) means youth. Na’[A]R means young lady, young man, older girl or boy.
Greek meirax (boy), Sanskrit marya (youth) and Latin maris (a man) are official etymons for MALE. R shifts to L. See MALE. Finnish nuore means young. Linguists working on reconstructing a proto language called Nostratic arrive at the root majr (young male). The Altaic (Japanese-Korean-Mongolian) counterpart is miarra (to marry a man), the Asiatic is mjr, mr (man).
Why is it gays and lesbians never identify themselves in these discussions?
Well if you really need to know, I am straight.
Most of the people who are pro-gay rights also happen to be straight, mostly on the grounds that only a small minority of the population is actually gay. One of the more commonly thrown around numbers is that 10% of the population is gay but that seems high and some of the newer research is showing that number to be flawed. It's probably more like 2-3%, and most of the rest of us don't really care what consenting adults do in private, or who gets married for that matter.
Quote: So what I'm reading is you object to the use of the word, not the act in and of itself. Correct?
I believe that marriage is one man and one woman.
That being said, I see no reason why a gay couple should not be allowed to join together in an equal civil union. I believe that the fight over gay marriage has fortified their opponents, and has really impeded the ability of things like civil unions to be accepted by the general public, to the point where things like the amendment to the Ohio Constitution, which was really poorly written, are passed by large margins.
It really is proponents of gay "marriage" who are cutting off their noses to spite their faces, by pressing for a word that they say is unimportant to everyone else. If the word marriage is not important, then accept civil unions or some other legal arrangement, and allow marriage to go by the wayside. If it should be unimportant for the opponents, then why do proponents of gay marriage fight so hard for the same word?
It's pointless. You just keep pointing fingers at everyone else. Keep on trying to dictate how others live their lives. It will make you a very happy man.
On the flip side, if allowing for the use of a synonym isn't a big deal... then why the hangup on the use of the word marriage? It MEANS the same thing.... why does the spelling matter -- except that you feel your union should be set apart from theirs?
Quote: I guess I don't even understand what the fight is about. A gay couple getting married doesn't really effect my life or my personal beliefs.
Pretty much sums it up for me. If 30 million gay people were to get married all at once.... I can guarantee I wouldn't notice even the slightest change in my day. NOTHING. So, why in the hell should I care what they do?
Quote: I guess I don't even understand what the fight is about. A gay couple getting married doesn't really effect my life or my personal beliefs.
Exactly. But some people think they own rights to a word, when in fact what they own is what that word means to them. I admit, it's a dumb debate...one that shouldn't even need to be had.
Am I correct in that you object to the use of the word based in part or in whole on a religious reason?
There are many religions where men are allowed multiple "wives" (including some Christian delegations). It was common place in the not too distant past.
There are also many male/female marriages that are in complete disarray and lend zero credibility to the "sanctity of marriage" arguement. How about those who have been "married" 6, 7 8 times or more? That's good for the ideal ?
There is substantial evidence that the bond of marriage was used to bind a woman to a man in the eyes of the law, not related to religion until the early 1400's.
What I'm trying to get at is that the term/verbage is debatable at best. And to use a single word to discriminate against someone is, at the least, unacceptable to me.
Quote: I guess I don't even understand what the fight is about.
The "fight" is about the myriad privileges and provisions afforded to couples who are legally married that, until either the legal definition of marriage includes same-sex couples or said laws that apply to married couples are also applicable to same-sex unions (regardless of term or nomenclature), set same-sex couples apart as second-class citizens in the eyes of the law.
Regardless of one's religious beliefs, if you (the royal "you", not the poster I'm replying to) believe that people ought to be treated differently on the basis of who they fall in love with then you have some serious soul-searching to do IMHO, and doubly so for those who actively seek to deny rights to them.
I don't want to put words in anyone's mouth, but I would venture to guess that people in same-sex relationships are far less concerned about how they're viewed in the eyes of the church than they are about being able to do things like file for a joint tax return, share employer benefits, enjoy spousal confidentiality privileges or make medical decisions on behalf of one another.
Quote: I guess I don't even understand what the fight is about. A gay couple getting married doesn't really effect my life or my personal beliefs.
Exactly. But some people think they own rights to a word, when in fact what they own is what that word means to them. I admit, it's a dumb debate...one that shouldn't even need to be had.
I agree Michelle, arguing over which word to use is just silly. Civil union, marry, what the hell ever. As long as people are receiving equal rights, who cares?
So maybe all legal marriages should be Civil Unions, basically what they are now anyways. If a church decides to "marry" gay people as a religious ceremony then that is up to them to decide. hell, there are many hetero couples who go to a justice of the peace and join in a legal marriage because their church would not approve of or condone their marriage.
My personal beliefs is that marriage is between one man, and one woman. But why would I want the government to enforce my moralitys on someone else? That's not the goverments place as long as the people aren't hurting anybody.
This is all about people wanting their religious and moral beliefs made into law, so it can be forced on someone else. It shouldn't matter whether you believe in gays getting married or not. Your beliefs should not be forced on anyone else by our government. If you choose not to do something, and your church teaches that something is morally wrong, then fine, you live by your moral standards, and don't do it, but it is not YOUR churches right to tell everybody else what they shouldn't be allowed to do, as long as they aren't hurting anybody.
Honestly, do I think the thought of two men having sex to be disgusting? Yeah, I do. Just real talk, but there could be plenty of things that aren't my cup of tea, I wouldt expect our government to legislate rules to stop that.
Quote: One of the more commonly thrown around numbers is that 10% of the population is gay but that seems high and some of the newer research is showing that number to be flawed. It's probably more like 2-3%
I'm never quite sure where these numbers come from. From the Census? I wouldn't be surprised if the number is even higher than 10%. The question is how is it surveyed? You have people that would never fill out a form that says "Same Sex Relationship" for whatever reasons they may have.
I guess it would depend on what you call a same sex relationship.
Is somebody who is married or has a BF/GF of the opposite sex, but is in the closet and having gay relations on the down low, considered in that number.
Quote: Is somebody who is married or has a BF/GF of the opposite sex, but is in the closet and having gay relations on the down low, considered in that number.
KIng
No, which is why it's probably higher than we think.
So maybe all legal marriages should be Civil Unions, basically what they are now anyways. If a church decides to "marry" gay people as a religious ceremony then that is up to them to decide. hell, there are many hetero couples who go to a justice of the peace and join in a legal marriage because their church would not approve of or condone their marriage.
One of the best thoughts I've read on the subject.
For the record, I support gay marriage - However, this does seem like an easy way to keep everyone happy, I would think.
The only arguments you've put forth are religious arguments, and have no standing in a country based on religious freedom. If you don't believe in gay marraige, then don't get gay married. What two consenting adults do in the privacy of their lives is none of my business. Whether people are straight, gay, married, single, swingers, or anything else does not affect my life one bit.
I honestly don't get why people are so opposed to allowing people who love each other to do so in peace. Fortunately, the people who oppose gay marriage are on the wrong side of history and it's only a matter of time before the US finally recognizes gay marriage as equal to the "traditional" (a loosely used term since traditional marriage was more about alliances and strengthening the power of two families). It's shameful that it's taking this long, but the end is in sight.
I think that's pretty close to the legal definition of the word.
But in my mind, Marriage can be between ANY two people that love each other and are of course, consenting adult regardless of gender.
But that's just the way I view it. I don't think Gender has a thing to do with it and I don't think you are I or the courts have a right to dig into it.
It just isn't out business.
Two people, same gender, say I do,, you wanna call it a union, I call it a marriage.
There is an old saying that compromise is the art of the possible. There is no compromise when one side says "give us everything we have asked for, and also have everyone accept it as correct and proper whether or not their moral or religious codes say that it is not."
I think that the civil union is a solid compromise, that would allow for greater support among those who might not otherwise support gay marriage.
If it's more important to call it marriage than to have the same rights and responsibilities as couples with 1 man and 1 woman and be called something different, then oh well. It seems to me that Michelle feels that I am wrong for wanting marriage to remain what it is today, and that I am unreasonable for not wanting to change .... while she is perfectly reasonable for wanting the word for herself, and to change the meaning of the word marriage ...... even though words supposedly don't matter.
If I was in that situation, and I wanted to have a lifelong legal connection to my chosen mate, then not being able to call it marriage would not upset me all that much ..... as long as I got all of the rights and privledges that married couples do. However, the fight to have it called marriage seems to be more important ..... which is the exact mirror image of what I was accused of.
The simple fact is that this refusal to compromise is why we have a crappy amendment to the Ohio Constitution that not only prohibits gay marriage, but also any legal approximation of marriage. In other words, no marriage, and no civil unions. That's some victory there. It didn't have to be that way ...... but people pushed, and pushed, and pushed for the word marriage ..... and we then wound up with a lousy law as a result. Not only a law, but a State Constitutional Amendment, which is harder to amend/change.
(and as I have said numerous times, I was opposed to, and voter against the Constitutional Amendment)
Quote: There is no compromise when one side says "give us everything we have asked for, and also have everyone accept it as correct and proper whether or not their moral or religious codes say that it is not."
REALLY?!?! You don't even consider what life is like as a "minority", do you? We've been "compromising" our entire lives. And, do you seriously think that it would magically change how gay people are treated to allow them to marry? I think it could actually make hate crimes worse from those people who feel cheated somehow.
Nobody is telling YOU how to live your damned life. I couldn't care less what you do. Why do you care so much what I do? GET OUT OF MY LIFE.
Quote: ...It didn't have to be that way ...... but people pushed, and pushed, and pushed for the word marriage ..... and we then wound up with a lousy law as a result.
Is this the one you reference? From 2004?
"Be it Resolved by the People of the State of Ohio:
That the Constitution of the State of Ohio be amended by adopting a section to be designated as Section 11 of Article XV thereof, to read as follows:
Article XV Section 11. Only a union between one man and one woman may be a marriage valid in or recognized by this state and its political subdivisions. This state and its political subdivisions shall not create or recognize a legal status for relationships of unmarried individuals that intends to approximate the design, qualities, significance or effect of marriage.
Quote: One of the more commonly thrown around numbers is that 10% of the population is gay but that seems high and some of the newer research is showing that number to be flawed. It's probably more like 2-3%
I'm never quite sure where these numbers come from. From the Census? I wouldn't be surprised if the number is even higher than 10%. The question is how is it surveyed? You have people that would never fill out a form that says "Same Sex Relationship" for whatever reasons they may have.
It's all too much.
Go REDS!!
First I will say that I don't know what the exact number is. Second, in effect it really shouldn't matter whether it is .2%, 2%, or 20%.
This video sums up the line of argument you're trying to make. What you are calling for is "separate but equal". How about we have just equal? I don't understand why YOU care what the union between two gay people is. It affects your life 0%. However, for gay people, it does matter because you're using the distinction between marriage/civil union to let them know that they are not equal to your heterosexual relationship.
Quote: ...It didn't have to be that way ...... but people pushed, and pushed, and pushed for the word marriage ..... and we then wound up with a lousy law as a result.
Is this the one you reference? From 2004?
"Be it Resolved by the People of the State of Ohio:
That the Constitution of the State of Ohio be amended by adopting a section to be designated as Section 11 of Article XV thereof, to read as follows:
Article XV Section 11. Only a union between one man and one woman may be a marriage valid in or recognized by this state and its political subdivisions. This state and its political subdivisions shall not create or recognize a legal status for relationships of unmarried individuals that intends to approximate the design, qualities, significance or effect of marriage.
A majority yes vote is necessary for passage."
That's the one. No marriage except for a man and a woman, and no approximation of marriage by the state or any political subdivisions ... so no cities, counties, etc.. (which means no civil unions)
It was like a nuclear bomb to gay marriage and civil unions, because it not only put a stop to both ,,, it completely eliminates the ability for anyone to Constitutionally create any type of union that in any way looks or acts like a marriage. This means that even simple and common sense things like allowing for a gay couple to care for one another with regards to medical care, certain financial matters, and so on can never happen if it is determined that they approximate the design, qualities, significance, or effects of marriage. That is such a broad and wide ranging expanse that almost anything could fit into that definition.
Not only that, but Ohio may not recognize a gay marriage performed in any other state ... nor may it recognize any of the benefits, such as hospital visitation, medical care, and other rights that marriage would convey in other states.
It was a badly written law, that is so broad that nothing from marriage to some sort of medical care rights for gay couples can ever be approved if it is determined that it in any way approximates any design, qualities, significance, or effects of marriage. Almost anything could fall within that definition, and thus almost any legislation designed to make life easier for gay couples cannot be Constitutional.
I think that if I was given the choice between getting everything i wanted, except one word .... or getting nothing ...... I would give up the word and move on with those things that would seem to me to be most important.
My point about the word itself is that you deride me for wanting to protect the meaning of a word, and you say that it's only a word .... but you are unwilling to move forward without that same word that is only "just a word", because you feel that it should be "your" word.
I won't pretend to understand the struggles that you or other gay/lesbian people go through. I am quite certain that there is a heavy duty attitude of disapproval and worse ...... however, it seems to me that the way to overcome that is not by trying to figuratively shove peoples' noses in it. That is not the way to gain widespread acceptance of your right to live your life as you choose. You want to change an institution. You want to make it something it has never been before. Can't you see why there would be resistance to such a change? Really? You are a very intelligent person. I cannot believe that you can't see how it would be easier to take a step less likely to offend the religious and traditional sensibilities of a majority of people, which gay "marriage" does. (again, as proved by that idiotic amendment) In many ways, I believe this fight creates resentment from many traditionalists, and creates even more opposition and resentment. (and yes, prejudice from many)
It was a horribly written ballot, I agree. I remember having a VERY long thread or two on the old board with you guys. And, I remember after the vote, so many people discovered they voted the way they hadn't intended to due to the wording. It doesn't matter. Here we are, nine years later, having the same stupid debate.
Quote: I cannot believe that you can't see how it would be easier to take a step less likely to offend the religious and traditional sensibilities of a majority of people, which gay "marriage" does.
Quote: My point about the word itself is that you deride me for wanting to protect the meaning of a word, and you say that it's only a word .... but you are unwilling to move forward without that same word that is only "just a word", because you feel that it should be "your" word.
No, never said the word can't mean what it means to you. Reread my posts. You are, however, telling ME that I can't use it because of what it means to YOU. What about what it means to ME? Oh, right...that doesn't matter.
For the record, I feel it should be A word. For all.
Quote: I cannot believe that you can't see how it would be easier to take a step less likely to offend the religious and traditional sensibilities of a majority of people, which gay "marriage" does.
If that is truly the case, then we'll have gay marriage across the board in no time flat. However, I do believe that a certain level of peer acceptance comes into play, and a desire to not be seen as intolerant when asked about gay marriage.
If people were truly in support of gay marriage, then states would match , or outperform their polls when it came to the elections. Instead most states have final vote margins, even in states where such measures pass, that are much more narrow than the polls would suggest they should be.
Quote: ...... however, it seems to me that the way to overcome that is not by trying to figuratively shove peoples' noses in it. That is not the way to gain widespread acceptance of your right to live your life as you choose. You want to change an institution. You want to make it something it has never been before. .
So, by allowing gay marriage we are "shoving people's noses in WHAT exactly? Seems to me the people shoving their noses where they don't belong are the ones telling us how to live our lives, no? I don't want to change an institution at all. Where did I say that?
But yet that word is what stands before equality and non equality. It is a very specific distinction. It separates a group based on nothing more than by the person they love.
In this day and age, when every person of any color, creed, religion, sex, and marital status have protections, this is the one that has yet to be eliminated at a governmental level.
National organizations have classified it as a protected class. But the government won't allow the recognition of their union. Heck, the county I live in has made it a protected class. But yet it is still seen as a way to segregate people on a State and National level.
Stop the discrimination and let person X marry person Y.
Quote: If people were truly in support of gay marriage, then states would match , or outperform their polls when it came to the elections
Umm..they do. Did you not click on the link I posted?
California Prop 8 vote in 2008 (where a yes means ban gay marriage): 52/48. Californians in 2008 who were for gay marriage in the poll I posted: 48%
Washington state Referendum 74 this year (where a yes means gay marriage is OK): 54/46 Washingtonians in 2012 who were for gay marriage in the poll I posted: 55%
I can list the other ballots for you too but they say the same thing: the data is correct. So the data says "and a desire to not be seen as intolerant when asked about gay marriage" is a baseless claim because people are voting in favor of gay marriage and matching the polling data.
Additionally, if you look at the bottom of the link I posted, by 2020, it is expected that 44/50 states will have a majority of "pro gay marriage" voters and that the national rate will go from 42% in 2008 (48% in 2012) to 60% in 2020. So I don't think people are just "saying they're ok with gay marriage to be less intolerant" but that people are becoming less intolerant.
I have no doubt that one day we'll have gay marriage and multiple marriage, and God knows what else. I don't have children, so it won't matter to me what this country does long term, but I do believe that traditions have value, and we shouldn't completely change the meaning of words related to our long established institutions. You can say that blue is now orange, but it really is still blue.
Now, I am going to depart this thread, because no one is going to convince anyone of their positions.
Quote: ...and we shouldn't completely change the meaning of words related to our long established institutions.
You still won't say how allowing gay marriage changes the meaning of the word...
The same way "interracial marriage" changed it 50 years ago...by not changing a damn thing but getting people's panties in a bunch because they have a hard time adapting to a changing world where more than straight, white people have rights.
Marriage, in the traditional sense and meaning of the word, in the legal and religious history of this country, is a legal, and sometimes religious union between one man and one woman. One man cannot legally marry more than one woman. One woman cannot marry more than one man. One man cannot marry one man, One woman cannot marry one woman. In the traditional, legal, and religious meanings of the word marriage throughout the history of the United States, it is one man married to one woman.
To attribute any other combination to the word is to change the very meaning of the word. It would be like saying that CO is the same a O2 .... because each contain 2 atoms, and what those atoms are shouldn't matter.
Now, I am done for the time being. We are going to go round and round and accomplish nothing. I like and respect you and your opinions, and I think that I agree with you far more often than not overall, but I disagree with your idea of what marriage is, and/or should be changed to be.
In which way does this argument differ than the argument for interracial marriage? You can easily replace gay marriage and interracial marriage for your argument since neither one was seen as "traditional for 200+ years of American history. Yet one is legal, and one is not. Do you really not see the irony or the cognitive dissonance there?
Quote: Marriage, in the traditional sense and meaning of the word, in the legal and religious history of this country, is a legal, and sometimes religious union between one man and one woman. One man cannot legally marry more than one woman. One woman cannot marry more than one man. One man cannot marry one man, One woman cannot marry one woman. In the traditional, legal, and religious meanings of the word marriage throughout the history of the United States, it is one man married to one woman.
You may want to crack a history book.
First of all, you left out the term 'white' several times in your post. Interracial marriage, historically, wasn't legal until 1967.
If you want to get into the legal definition of marriage being between a man and a woman, you don't have to go back very far ... it didn't happen until 1973, when Maryland became the first state to do so. It wasn't defined federally as between a man and a woman - in a legal sense - until the 1990's.
Polygamy wasn't banned until 1862.
Married women weren't allowed to own property until 1900.
Married couples weren't legally allowed to use contraception until 1965.
Married women weren't allowed to have credit in their name until 1975.
I could keep going...
Do you really want to continue to pursue the avenue of what the legal definition of marriage is in our country's history?
For someone who had two profiles on the old board, both making the same statements one right after the other, it's surprising that you want to call somebody 2 faced Tingcreek.
Honestly - what is up with you guys and the name calling?
I don't mean to pick on you in particular - I've seen other guys do it lately.
But what is the point of calling him 'Nillcreek'?
There's really no comedic value to it. It's not very witty or funny. And it doesn't really serve as an insult to him. In fact, the opposite is true, it reflects poorly on you.
There are a lot of people out there who would see stuff like that and wave off any opinion you might have, even if you've got astute points to make.
Changing 'Mil' to 'Nil' or whatever as an insult? It seems to me like something Sarah Palin would say with a wink.
For someone who had two profiles on the old board, both making the same statements one right after the other, it's surprising that you want to call somebody 2 faced Tingcreek.
That is a false statement. He did not have two profiles on the old board. Not a cool thing to say about a guy on a new board.
For someone who had two profiles on the old board, both making the same statements one right after the other, it's surprising that you want to call somebody 2 faced Tingcreek.
That is a false statement. He did not have two profiles on the old board. Not a cool thing to say about a guy on a new board.
Nothing has changed in Weinerworld, folks will learn on this board how Weiner really manipulates the truth,
There is an old saying that compromise is the art of the possible. There is no compromise when one side says "give us everything we have asked for, and also have everyone accept it as correct and proper whether or not their moral or religious codes say that it is not."
Stop the presses,,, Ytown believes in Compromise,.. You've given me hope my friend..
I really have no opinion on the matter. My religious beliefs are mine, and the only one I am accountable to is God. If someone else chooses to do something that some think is against the laws of God, that is the offenders choice (free will) and if it is deemed wrong in the eyes of God, then that person will be held accountable when thte time comes, it is not my position to pass judgement.
Until that day I will do my best to "love thy neighbor" (and yes my neighbors are a gay male couple, who I get along with very well)
But on the lighter side, wasn't the Reese's Peanut Butter cup a MARRIAGE of chocolate and peanut butter or was it just a union.?
I think too many people get caught up with what others are doing and not looking at what they are doing. If we were all more tolerant, courteous, and polite, the world could be a wonderful peaceful place.
There is an old saying that compromise is the art of the possible. There is no compromise when one side says "give us everything we have asked for, and also have everyone accept it as correct and proper whether or not their moral or religious codes say that it is not."
Stop the presses,,, Ytown believes in Compromise,.. You've given me hope my friend..
I have always believed in compromise ...... but that's not to be confused with totally giving in on principles. Some interpret a conservative compromising as giving the other side everything they want, and that's a compromise. I don't share that ideal.
There is an old saying that compromise is the art of the possible. There is no compromise when one side says "give us everything we have asked for, and also have everyone accept it as correct and proper whether or not their moral or religious codes say that it is not."
Stop the presses,,, Ytown believes in Compromise,.. You've given me hope my friend..
I have always believed in compromise ...... but that's not to be confused with totally giving in on principles. Some interpret a conservative compromising as giving the other side everything they want, and that's a compromise. I don't share that ideal.
There are those on here that wouldn't state it that way Ytown and you know it. Any compromise with Obama is a bad compromise as some would have you believe.
Any compromise on religious beliefs is a bad compromise, as some would have you believe.,
My personal feelings are pretty well known I think. I believe to reach compromise, you start out at the far right and the far left and meet as close to the middle as you can.
And yes, sometimes you do have to give in to things that irk you, but are for the greater good of mankind or country or whatever it is we are fighting over today.
You can't have true compromise without giving something up that you don't want to give up. Can't happen.
So, is Rape the same as Assault, or is it a special type of crime?
It is different because Men and Women are different. It is different because the sexual union of a man and a woman is Different than such a union in a same sex couple.
That union between a man and a woman is protected in a variety of ways, and Rape laws are, in part, an element of that protection.
The Collective "we" has an interest in children being produced, it has an interest in parenting couples that share an unique and un-breakable bond with those mutually-produced children, it has an interest in that couple remaining a unit for the long-term upbringing of those children, it has an interest in that parental unit being a fusion of two completely different physical, emotional, biological, and procreative energies. It is NOT POSSIBLE for a same-sex couple to replicate the above.
The design of this parenting system is not some new-gfangled conservative concept, it Pre-Dates The Discovery Of FIRE.
If somebody wants to have some different grouping together of couples, fine and dandy. Same rights and priveleges, now there's a discussion, but sure. In fact I have some interest in eliminating Male-Female biases in dissolving a marriage and dealing with children, as somebody else got into. Rock on.
However - to claim that a same-sex union is the same thing as a man-woman union, is just not correct, and it reeks of a mind-set that I strongly disagree with. It is Different, and changing a label does not make it the same.
If there is NO difference, then Rape is just Assault.
How about we really compromise? The country allows gay marriages, and we (the country) agree to forever defend marriage as being limited to TWO(mostly) un-related adults. I say 'mostly' so we avoid brothers and sisters,fathers and adult children, mothers and adult children or close cousins from marrying.
Quote: to TWO(mostly) un-related adults. I say 'mostly' so we avoid brothers and sisters,fathers and adult children, mothers and adult children or close cousins from marrying.
So does that mean Pittsburgh has to be kicked out of the states?
Quote: How about we really compromise? The country allows gay marriages, and we (the country) agree to forever defend marriage as being limited to TWO(mostly) un-related adults. I say 'mostly' so we avoid brothers and sisters,fathers and adult children, mothers and adult children or close cousins from marrying.
LOL,, Ok you had me wondering where you were going with the "Mostly" thing..
But why do we have to allow anyone. The word "Allow" bothers me. You allow your kids to use the car, you allow people to come on your property, you allow a repair man to fix things for you (for consideration of course), you allow friends and family to stay at your home when visiting..
I'm not thinking it's our place to either allow or disallow who marries who.
I just don't think it's my business to tell anyone who to do what with as long as they are consenting adults.
Keep in mind, I'm not trying to tell you how to feel or how to behave towards same sex relationships. That's your call.. That is also something else I don't think is my business.
Quote: So, is Rape the same as Assault, or is it a special type of crime?
It is different because Men and Women are different. It is different because the sexual union of a man and a woman is Different than such a union in a same sex couple.
That union between a man and a woman is protected in a variety of ways, and Rape laws are, in part, an element of that protection.
Quote: If there is NO difference, then Rape is just Assault.
This is one of the weirder arguments I've heard it awhile. There's really no logic to it whatsoever.
A woman can be assaulted and not raped, a man can rape a man, etc., etc.
Rape and assault aren't the same thing, and it has nothing to do with sexual unions. It has to do with the fact that they're entirely different things. If I punch a woman or a man in the mouth, that's not rape. If I attempt sexual intercourse with them against their will, that is.
I am and I always have been very allergic to other people telling me what I can and I cannot do, therefore I'm pretty careful not to do that to others.
This is because if I try to.. I would then have a reasonable expectation they would attempt to tell me what to do, and I will simply not put up with that.
Having said that I could care less who screws who or who marries who. Everyone has the right to an expensive divorce attorney.
That is a false statement. He did not have two profiles on the old board. Not a cool thing to say about a guy on a new board.
I see that selective criticism is being used on this board as well.
If you don't want people to pick on Mittcreek you might want to suggest to him that he practice sanity on occasion.
Rockdog is better known as "Weinerdog" on the Browns site, a supporter of Barrack Husein Obama, big government, wealth distribution, gay marriage, atheism, increased welfare spending, amenesty for illegals and all Green initiatives no matter the cost. He is a school teacher who feels underpaid and pension slighted who uses a an old English/East Chicago/Brit slang to communicate. He is really harmless, but loves to scatch his nails on the chaulk board. Take his rambling with a grain of salt and laugh if you can. I am sure he will eventually take a stand on the side of gay marriage and enlighten us all.
It is different and more serious because it carries with it the possibility of procreation. This has a whole slew of various consequences and effects that change the picture entirely. An assault is still a bad thing, and can also have long-lasting effects, but of an entirely different order.
It is different than an assault in the exact same way that same-sex union is different than man-woman union. Most customs, traditions, and procedures geared to accomodate man-woman unions have arisen to foster the creation of new citizens to contribute to the community. Doesn't mean same-sex unions are bad, just that they do not, by themselves, do this.
The difference is fundamental and constitutes the reason why we want more of one and less of the other, considering the meaning of the words "rape" and "marriage".
Unions which usually carry the possibility of procreation are something that is necessary for the race to survive, that they ideally should have children that are mutually created and that they represent together a balance between the two poles in human gender norms, is highly desireable and the best way for orderly society to survive.
To say that a union which by definition cannot accomplish the basic biological reason for man-woman unions to exist in the first place is a good and wonderful thing, great, no problem. Have at it, all day long. Call it whatever you want. It's still not the same thing.
Quote: Well, DancinDawg will graduate Kent State next year, she wants to do OSU Law School. I want as many opportunities available to her as possible
She is NOT old enough to be graduating from KSU yet (I know, next year, not this year). Bah! I haven't aged a day since I met your kids, how could they have aged?
Quote: Well, DancinDawg will graduate Kent State next year, she wants to do OSU Law School. I want as many opportunities available to her as possible
She is NOT old enough to be graduating from KSU yet (I know, next year, not this year). Bah! I haven't aged a day since I met your kids, how could they have aged?
Some of us must have received your years for you ......
Quote: Well, by your logic our laws should not be able to tell someone not to commit murder.
KING
I think the basic rule of live and let live, is that your actions do not interfere with others.
Most people wouldn't care if did 120mph down an empty interstate, but if others are around and your actions could have consequences for them, then it is reasonable for you to be expected to show courtesy and follow the basic rules of safety.
Quote: It is different and more serious because it carries with it the possibility of procreation.
If I raped you, there isn't the possibility of procreation. Therefore, by your definition, it isn't rape.
If I force a woman to perform oral sex on me at gunpoint, by your definition, that isn't rape.
I could keep going ... do you see the illogical nature of your argument?
Quote:
Unions which usually carry the possibility of procreation are something that is necessary for the race to survive, that they ideally should have children that are mutually created and that they represent together a balance between the two poles in human gender norms, is highly desireable and the best way for orderly society to survive.
To say that a union which by definition cannot accomplish the basic biological reason for man-woman unions to exist in the first place is a good and wonderful thing, great, no problem. Have at it, all day long. Call it whatever you want. It's still not the same thing.
So by your logic, if a sterile man wanted to be with a woman, or an infertile woman wanted to be a man, they couldn't get married, but would have to enter into a civil union, correct?
Quote: Rockdog is better known as "Weinerdog" on the Browns site, a supporter of Barrack Husein Obama, big government, wealth distribution, gay marriage, atheism, increased welfare spending, amenesty for illegals and all Green initiatives no matter the cost. He is a school teacher who feels underpaid and pension slighted who uses a an old English/East Chicago/Brit slang to communicate. He is really harmless, but loves to scatch his nails on the chaulk board. Take his rambling with a grain of salt and laugh if you can. I am sure he will eventually take a stand on the side of gay marriage and enlighten us all.
Although some of this is your rambling I appreciate the endorsement Tingcreek!
What you are calling non-procreational rape, even today, makes up a very small fraction of the total count. As rape was originally defined, the non-precreational acts you describe were not considered so.
You are dealing with a very small percentage of the total, such that, for the purposes I am describing, they can be ignored.
At no point did I DEFINE rape. I described WHY IT IS that such crime is considered more serious than a simple assault. What I am doing is stating that the modern definition of rape is a recent event. The characteristics of the crime for thousands of years have been as I described, whether or not rare, non-procreational acts are described using that term, or not.
You can technically assault someone by throwing flower petals at them. Using such a non-typical event to dismiss what are obvious, inherent characteristics of an assault is non-rational, or, in other words, something phil would do.
Likewise, a man-woman couple who don't want have children is atypical; also, their desires might change. The fact that some couples do not want children has nothing whatsoever to do with the FACT that couples having children is what we want to happen. As soon as having no children becomes the norm, the race will die out inevitably.
Take a man and a woman couple and GUARANTEE that they will not mutually, biologically produce children, assuming their are healthy.
Same-sex couple cannot do this by definition. Ironically, this is because they are THE SAME and NOT DIFFERENT.
Just for one point, for many hundreds of years, there was no safe method to terminate a pregnancy, and the mortality rate for both infants and mothers was dramatically higher than today. Also, significant possibility that any childbirth would render further births impossible. The "damage" or "harm" inflicted by rape was very much greater than it is today. A pregnancy is not seen as a very real risk to life and abortions are safe.
So, when I suggest what the inherent characteristics of something are, and that something has existed for thousands of years, some people might have the thought that these things tend to shift somewhat over long periods of time, and how they are looked at in the last twenty years or so is fairly meaningless compared to their meaning over nearly the entire span of civilized humanity.
Quote: In which way does this argument differ than the argument for interracial marriage? You can easily replace gay marriage and interracial marriage for your argument since neither one was seen as "traditional for 200+ years of American history. Yet one is legal, and one is not. Do you really not see the irony or the cognitive dissonance there?
Quote: In which way does this argument differ than the argument for interracial marriage? You can easily replace gay marriage and interracial marriage for your argument since neither one was seen as "traditional for 200+ years of American history. Yet one is legal, and one is not. Do you really not see the irony or the cognitive dissonance there?
You're joking.
Actually, no, I don't believe that he is, and I agree with him completely.
Quote: ...... however, it seems to me that the way to overcome that is not by trying to figuratively shove peoples' noses in it. That is not the way to gain widespread acceptance of your right to live your life as you choose. You want to change an institution. You want to make it something it has never been before. .
So, by allowing gay marriage we are "shoving people's noses in WHAT exactly? Seems to me the people shoving their noses where they don't belong are the ones telling us how to live our lives, no? I don't want to change an institution at all. Where did I say that?
Lol.. sooner or later lib-speak rears it's ugly head. Who is telling who how to live their lives? You gays can engage in any perverted act that your hearts desire. No one cares. Since when is marriage a prerequisite for sex these days anyway?
You most certainly do want to change an institution. What would you call deviating from the long held tradition that marriage is supposed to be between one man and one woman? Sounds like change to me.
Quote: In which way does this argument differ than the argument for interracial marriage? You can easily replace gay marriage and interracial marriage for your argument since neither one was seen as "traditional for 200+ years of American history. Yet one is legal, and one is not. Do you really not see the irony or the cognitive dissonance there?
You're joking.
Actually, no, I don't believe that he is, and I agree with him completely.
And why am I not surprised.
I am interracially married, but my Asian mate has a vagina.
You and your mate have a mutual and consensual feeling of shared love. I'd imagine many of these same-sex couples have the exact same feeling for each other that the two of you share. Is there a reason, barring any sort of religious dogma, why same-sex couples shouldn't be married?
Quote: Well, DancinDawg will graduate Kent State next year, she wants to do OSU Law School. I want as many opportunities available to her as possible
She is NOT old enough to be graduating from KSU yet (I know, next year, not this year). Bah! I haven't aged a day since I met your kids, how could they have aged?
Quote: In which way does this argument differ than the argument for interracial marriage? You can easily replace gay marriage and interracial marriage for your argument since neither one was seen as "traditional for 200+ years of American history. Yet one is legal, and one is not. Do you really not see the irony or the cognitive dissonance there?
You're joking.
Actually, no, I don't believe that he is, and I agree with him completely.
And why am I not surprised.
I am interracially married, but my Asian mate has a vagina.
Does that help clear things up?
It still doesn't change the fact that for over 200 years of American history, that marriage was not seen as traditional, and that "tradition" is no reason why we shouldn't expand equal rights to all Americans, regardless of the sex the consenting adult they choose to marry.
In fact, until the Loving v. Virginia case in 1967, interracial couples were JAILED just because they married each other. 50 years from now, gay marriage will be as accepted as interracial marriage is today. And those people will be as shocked by how resistant people were to accept gay marriage as legitimate as we are shocked by racial segregation and the prohibition of interracial marriage.
DOMA is dead... gone, it is clearly discriminatory and fails the tenth amendment test. The federal government can't re-define marriage for its convenience if it does not like a states definition. And marriage is defined at the state level.
The California case is a bit more challenging, I think the real issue is how the issues of gays are addressed in state law, the laws outside of the definition of marriage that are important. It could go either way, but my feeling is that the court will rule on the California case, and limit it to California.
Quote: In fact, until the Loving v. Virginia case in 1967, interracial couples were JAILED just because they married each other. 50 years from now, gay marriage will be as accepted as interracial marriage is today. And those people will be as shocked by how resistant people were to accept gay marriage as legitimate as we are shocked by racial segregation and the prohibition of interracial marriage.
50 years ago the Bible didn't say interracial marriage was wrong, it also didn't say being of this race or that was a sin. That's why people look back at those people (several of whom were wearing hoods) with shock.
50 years from now the Bible will still say that homosexuality is a sin, and that's not going to change ever.
Not being self righteous, Lord knows I'm nowhere near righteous apart from him, but if he says its wrong, I'll be found standing up for what he says is right.
Also: Deuteronomy 7:3-4 You shall not intermarry with them, giving your daughters to their sons or taking their daughters for your sons, 4 for they would turn away your sons from following me, to serve other gods. Then the anger of the Lord would be kindled against you, and he would destroy you
2 Corinthians 6:14 Do not be unequally yoked with unbelievers. For what partnership has righteousness with lawlessness? Or what fellowship has light with darkness?
Should we ban interfaith marriages as well?
Your argument is based solely on YOUR religious beliefs, which is fine. But YOUR religious beliefs shouldn't trump other people's rights just because YOUR religion in a country founded on freedom of religion doesn't like a certain action. Why should other people be subjected to your religious faith? Even if homosexuality is a sin, prohibiting gay people from getting married does not stop them from being gay, so I've never understood the religious argument in the first place. And it is one of MANY sins, many of which each and every one of us commits each day, but yet our rights aren't trampled. He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone
Quote: I've never understood the religious argument in the first place.
Many believe we're a Christian nation. Mainly because of references to God in the pledge, currency, state mottos, etc. A lot of this comes from the belief that the founding fathers practiced Christianity that is similar to modern day. This is far from the truth but a lot of it is rooted in this false belief about being founded as a Christian nation.
There's also the Treaty of Tripoli which firmly roots us into a secular nation. However, this is usually glossed over in U.S. History classes. Here's a nice image of the article in question which roots us as a secular nation.
The funny F symbol is actually a fancy way to write an S. We were quite pretentious back then
Quote: In which way does this argument differ than the argument for interracial marriage? You can easily replace gay marriage and interracial marriage for your argument since neither one was seen as "traditional for 200+ years of American history. Yet one is legal, and one is not. Do you really not see the irony or the cognitive dissonance there?
You're joking.
Actually, no, I don't believe that he is, and I agree with him completely.
I hadn't given that an ounce of thought,, but yeah,, it's kinda the same thing. or I should say it was, until it wasn't anymore.
I suspect that at some point, same sex marriage will be viewed in the same manner.
Quote: In fact, until the Loving v. Virginia case in 1967, interracial couples were JAILED just because they married each other. 50 years from now, gay marriage will be as accepted as interracial marriage is today. And those people will be as shocked by how resistant people were to accept gay marriage as legitimate as we are shocked by racial segregation and the prohibition of interracial marriage.
50 years ago the Bible didn't say interracial marriage was wrong, it also didn't say being of this race or that was a sin. That's why people look back at those people (several of whom were wearing hoods) with shock.
50 years from now the Bible will still say that homosexuality is a sin, and that's not going to change ever.
Not being self righteous, Lord knows I'm nowhere near righteous apart from him, but if he says its wrong, I'll be found standing up for what he says is right.
What the heck does the Bible have to do with anything?
Quote: 50 years from now the Bible will still say that homosexuality is a sin, and that's not going to change ever.
Depending on who you talk to, it doesn't say that. I'm not going to debate bible translation, though. We've done that here before and it's pretty much pointless.
The Bible also states that we should not tattoo our bodies, shouldn't eat a rare steak (or any meat that still has blood) and many other things that we do but I don't hear everyone up in arms about those parts.
It's funny how only certain parts are brought out when we choose to use them to further our own.
Rockdog is better known as "Weinerdog" on the Browns site, a supporter of Barrack Husein Obama, big government, wealth distribution, gay marriage, atheism, increased welfare spending, amenesty for illegals and all Green initiatives no matter the cost. He is a school teacher who feels underpaid and pension slighted who uses a an old English/East Chicago/Brit slang to communicate. He is really harmless, but loves to scatch his nails on the chaulk board. Take his rambling with a grain of salt and laugh if you can. I am sure he will eventually take a stand on the side of gay marriage and enlighten us all.
So his political views are the opposite of yours which entitles you to somehow label him in some uncomplimentary manner. Don't you understand it is that very train of thought as to why our nation and its people are so divided?
You sir don't help solve problems, you are one of the problems.
Rockdog is better known as "Weinerdog" on the Browns site, a supporter of Barrack Husein Obama, big government, wealth distribution, gay marriage, atheism, increased welfare spending, amenesty for illegals and all Green initiatives no matter the cost. He is a school teacher who feels underpaid and pension slighted who uses a an old English/East Chicago/Brit slang to communicate. He is really harmless, but loves to scatch his nails on the chaulk board. Take his rambling with a grain of salt and laugh if you can. I am sure he will eventually take a stand on the side of gay marriage and enlighten us all.
So his political views are the opposite of yours which entitles you to somehow label him in some uncomplimentary manner. Don't you understand it is that very train of thought as to why our nation and its people are so divided?
You sir don't help solve problems, you are one of the problems.
Quote: 50 years from now the Bible will still say that homosexuality is a sin, and that's not going to change ever.
Not being self righteous, Lord knows I'm nowhere near righteous apart from him, but if he says its wrong, I'll be found standing up for what he says is right.
That's pretty funny actually.
You do know what happened in the story of Sodom and Ghomora right?
Lott and his family were judged by their actions, not everyone elses. The bible tells us to "spread the word", not inflict our religious beliefs upon everyone else.
So according to "The bible", you will be judged by your actions, not everyone elses. And you have no right to inflict your beliefs upon others.
I'd say. after reading the bible a lot myself, your job is to keep your houses in order and not judge others. You remember what it said about judging others don't you?
Quote: The Bible also states that we should not tattoo our bodies, shouldn't eat a rare steak (or any meat that still has blood) and many other things that we do but I don't hear everyone up in arms about those parts.
It's funny how only certain parts are brought out when we choose to use them to further our own.
I was just having this conversation with a friend the other day.
The New Testament says that Jesus came to save us through Grace, and Grace does not require works. Grace is freely given, and must simply be accepted.
The New testament says that, because of this, the Old testament Law is not binding upon those who are redeemed through Christ. Further, we are told to go forth and sin no more. I don't believe that this means that we will never commit a sin, but rather that because of God's Grace, we are forgiven our sins just as if they had never happened.
However ..... this is not a license to sin. I don't know where the line is drawn ...... but I doubt that God wants us to violate the 10 Commandments on a daily bases and claim faith in a hypocritical fashion. The Old testament Law is gone for those who believe in Christ, but I would think that we are expected to try and obey His Commandments.
I'm not going to say anything further about the marriage aspect of this thread ..... but I do think that God wants us to live lives pleasing to Him.
Quote: 50 years from now, gay marriage will be as accepted as interracial marriage is today. And those people will be as shocked by how resistant people were to accept gay marriage as legitimate as we are shocked by racial segregation and the prohibition of interracial marriage.
I don't really have a problem with gay marriage from a political standpoint. I don't agree with it in my faith, but that's for me to deal with.. not for the government to make mandates to my religion...
But I wonder, 50 years from now, when gay marriage is accepted, and I believe it will... I wonder what people will be fighting for... marrying an avatar? a hologram? polygamy? interalien? Because if you think the fight ends here...
Quote: However ..... this is not a license to sin. I don't know where the line is drawn ...... but I doubt that God wants us to violate the 10 Commandments on a daily bases and claim faith in a hypocritical fashion. The Old testament Law is gone for those who believe in Christ, but I would think that we are expected to try and obey His Commandments.
I agree with this 100%.
So I guess at that point the question becomes.... Is it for each of us to be responsible to do this in our own life and be responsible for our own actions in this regard, or to mandate it in our laws for everyone?
That's where I think I differ with many. I feel each person is accountable for themselves. That mandating religious teachings or moral beliefs upon everyone is not the job of Christians or any religion.
The way our nations laws are currently, we do not have the right to discriminate or withhold equality from anyone. By the laws of the land, it would seem keeping gay marriage illegal is in fact discriminatory. So by the law of the land, I feel it should be legal.
The only reason I could see it shouldn't be, is by some religious moral code. Which is something I feel each of us should keep in our own life without inflicting our moral and religious beliefs on everyone.
Sin and the Bible have nothing to do with constitutional rights. The question is, are gay people citizens of the United States? If they ARE citizens then they must be afforded ALL of the rights every other citizen enjoys. Period. Anything less is discrimination.
Quote: The Bible also states that we should not tattoo our bodies, shouldn't eat a rare steak (or any meat that still has blood) and many other things that we do but I don't hear everyone up in arms about those parts.
It's funny how only certain parts are brought out when we choose to use them to further our own.
Pasteur should be in heaven. Old testament restrictions on food were based on death that occurred as a result of poor sanitation and a lack of ice. Most of the restrictions are have direct and defensible reasoning when sanitary practice was understood.
You are aware that straight couples are sometimes incapable of having babies right?
And why is "biologically" creating children a requirement for marriage? Adopted kids are just as loved as "biological" children. And guess what else? Some couples don't want children. At all. And yet they still are married. Shocking, I know.
All this once again is a complete logical fallacy. People are already gay. Allowing gay people to get married does not turn everyone else gay. Prohibiting gay people from getting married does not turn them straight. All allowing gay people to get married does is give people who have committed themselves to a long-term, monogamous relationship the same rights as heterosexual couples.
I honestly don't see why this matters so much to people. If a gay couple is married or not impacts your life 0%, but it impacts their lives enormously.
Quote: How shall we grant them the right to mutually and biologically create children?
By focusing lots of positive thoughts?
Maybe changing the label will help?
At first I thought you'd just forgotten to use the established 'purple sarcasm' font... but then, I remembered who was posting...
WE DON'T grant them (... or wish for them) anything of the sort.... because procreation isn't a constitutional mandate or requirement of ANY US citizen... gay or hetero.
This has NOTHING to do with procreation, the Bible, or any other held "religious belief system."
It has EVERYTHING to do with the application of what rights shall be bestowed upon (or withheld from) "certain members" of American Society.... as outlined by The Constitution of The United States of America.
This is an issue of 'Hardazz National Law,' Nelson... not your personal idea of "The Way Things Ought To Be."
__________________________
Cloud the issue with side arguments all you will, one thing is certain: denying ANY Americans rights and privileges that are enjoyed by other Americans is discrimination, pure and simple.
This is a constitutional issue only.... not a religious or even "moral" one... because concepts such as "morality" are always evaluated from a point of bias by everyone.... and even religious dogma has changed over the passage of time. (Do I need to remind you of the 'Game Changer' Jesus represented, as we "Modern Christians" transitioned from Old Testament to New?)
We have, in our Constitution, provisions that provide for ALL Americans to enjoy the same canon of rights and responsibilities... provisions which have been systematically denied "certain" Americans since the Constitution and Bill Of Rights were established. Native Americans. "Captive African Immigrants." (love that euphemism...) Chinese "Coolies." Japanese internment camps. American-born offspring of migrant workers....
The list goes on and on.... and so does the list of excuses for separating these people from the 'American Dream,' as long as there are knuckle-draggin' neanderthals who persist in seeing American Freedom as a 'zero-sum game.'
Why? -because it's Human Nature... and our Founding Fathers were astute enough to understand that Human Nature will always draw distinctions- and use those distinctions to justify oppression. Thinking such as this:
It's the: "Irish/Italians/Africans/Chinese/Japanese/Albanians/Romanians/Russians/Germans/Catholics/Muslims/Greek Orthodoxes/ Mormons/Unitarians/Jehovah's Witnesses/Moonies/ [insert subclass of Americans here] who are the problem. Keep them down/out, and everything will be great!" attitude that made the Founding Fathers set up this Grand Social Experiment in the first place. They were personal leaders of "an oppressed class"... and sought to enact policy that would protect American citizens from such institutionalized 'second-class citizenship.'
_________________________________
When will this country's principles EVER rise beyond its "lowest common denominator?" Must they always be a chain on the leg of Uncle Sam, as he limps toward the horizon?
There are people who state (in an attempt to legitimize their prejudices): "The Founding Fathers never had this in mind, when they framed the Constitution..."
I say: "Good on them.... because they were wise enough to know that they didn't know everything... and were also wise enough to give their progeny the means to sort it out."
...and that's exactly what's happening now, Nelson... almost 240 years later. For yet another group of "Americans" who have been denied equal treatment.
_______________________________
Stuff such as "procreation," "God's Law," Old/New Testament chapter and verse, and "sliding-slope" arguments such as "morality are side issues, at best.... and do nothing to change the fact that a significant portion of America's populace are being denied rights that are taken for granted by others.
It's the very definition of discrimination.... and it's wrong- according to the guidelines we all were given (by birthright or naturalization) by the Constitution that sets our nation's policy.
_________________________
THIS has to do with the overriding Law Of The Land... whether some citizens, such as yourself, like it- or not.
Fair is fair. Equal is equal.
To advocate for anything less than that absolute is to allow bigotry to influence National Policy.
I'd like to think that Our Nation is just a bit better than the least of its citizens, thank you very much.
Why do I, as a heterosexual male in a monogamous marriage care so much about the rights of some gays that I may (or may not) know?
...because I trace my family's ethnic ancestry back to American Slavery.
...and If they, like me- can be free, so should others.
As my Uncle Spence says: "Either get yourself right about this- or get left (in the dust)."
Marriage is a condition wherein the partners have certain rights and abilities relative to each other, AND their children. The primary reason the State or Collective We takes any notice of "Marriage" at all is due to procreation. This goes back many thousands of years. It came before organized government on a large scale, it is not a religious or moral issue.
I'm short, and I can"t dribble and run at the same time, but I want all the rights of an NBA player. Why should I not have them?
The reason is that I am not capable of fulfilling the primary function of an NBA player. I can't play basketball.
So, let's change the meaning of basketball to something else. It's not about scoring points, it's just a bunch of guys hanging out together.
"Discrimination" does not mean "to treat badly or wrongly". It means "to perceive a difference". Are you so afraid of making a choice, so totally unwilling to state that there is, in fact, something different here, such that rather than identify what is clearly obvious you would prefer to just change the definition?
Somebody brought up adopted children, I am amazed it took so long. Now, certainly people love and care for their adopted children, and also certainly there are couples that mistreat their mutually, biologically created offspring.
HOWEVER - Which condition is MORE LIKELY to create a situation where both members of a couple are INVESTED in that childs care, and share a bond, which is like NO OTHER, and likely to keep the couple together for the nurturing of that child?
The ties of blood, and family, are strong and fundamentally important. There is a reason that the expression "blood is thicker than water" is an ancient one. The meaning is related to marriage. Marriage is the mechanism by which two separate "bloods" become one.
I do not wish to deny ANY right to ANY person. Nor should they be denied to me. However, I am not and will never be an NBA player, and have no inherent "right" to call myself one.
Clem, would your father have demanded the right to call himself Caucasian? From what you have described in the past, I don't think so. Same rights and treatment, sure, but he would not re-define what he was, nor what a Caucasian was, as a way to get those rights. I'm pretty sure he would, in fact, discriminate and see, believe, and understand that there was a difference, and no mere changing of label would affect that.
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!
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!
Hire an agent and get some tryouts with some NBA teams. I would presume you are of the age where you can forgo the requirement of having to declare for the draft. If you lack game film for scouts to watch, you might want to consider playing overseas for a year or two, possibly in Israel, Turkey or Spain. I don't see anyone preventing you from doing this.
Again, I'm curious as to why the federal government should have any say regarding marriage. I've read the Constitution front and back and couldn't find one darn thing about marriage in it....
How about we leave it to the states to decide, which is actually prescribed by the Tenth Amendment? Anyone? Anyone???
Just to clarify, are you comparing admission into a private competitive sports league (controlled by a private entity) with the federal government's interpretations and allowance of benefits associated with marriage?
No, I am comparing the desire for having a particular label or qualification when I am unable to fulfill the basic requirements of that label or qualification to, well, the same thing.
Further, that even though I can do everything else that an NBA player can do, outside of basketball, I am being denied some fundamental right because they refuse to call me an NBA player.
It is not necessary to have the abilities of an NBA player, already having the same rights is not enough, I am denied the label and that's discrimination.
BTW, I don't WANT to play basketball and have no interest in ever doing so. I only want the label to end the terrible discrimination.
Your definition of an NBA player is completely wrong. It does not matter that what you say has been true for many years. I have re-defined being an NBA player as anyone who would be happier if they were called an NBA player.
Playing basketball is not and never has been the primary purpose of an NBA player, and in fact has nothing whatsoever to do with it.
Your beliefs are old-fashioned, antiquated, out-of-touch, and probably come from a well-known and widely discredited ancient publication, even though it does contain much fundamental truth, you're reading Athletics Pictured, aren't you?
Quote: How about we leave it to the states to decide, which is actually prescribed by the Tenth Amendment? Anyone? Anyone???
I think it's for the Federal government to make the push for the recognition because to me this is a basic civil rights issue. A state shouldn't be allowed to block a civil right because it does not believe in it. JMO.
Quote: How about we leave it to the states to decide, which is actually prescribed by the Tenth Amendment? Anyone? Anyone???
I think it's for the Federal government to make the push for the recognition because to me this is a basic civil rights issue. A state shouldn't be allowed to block a civil right because it does not believe in it. JMO.
I don't fully agree with what you're saying, but that's a fair point. Point taken.
The ability to mutually, biologically produce children. That is the purpose of the institution. The laws and customs surrounding it have arisen largely because most marriages will create things which will outlive either member of the couple, in a real, physical, and connected sense.
There is a fusing of bloodlines, there is continuation of the species.
Same-sex couples CANNOT do this. They will create nothing that outlives them, in a living sense. They will create no fusing of bloodlines. Other than brothers and sisters, there will be no "next of kin". They will have no "progeny". These words appear often in law and custom, why do you think that is?
Sure, there are childless couples. For most of human history, such a marriage was called a "failed marriage". This was a justifiable reason for splitting up and trying again with someone else, in fact at various times and places such action was enforced.
Civil Union grants all the rights and privileges, while still recognizing the difference, though not really in any important sense.
I am aware the NBA example is weak, however I would point out that the overtones of the "interracial marriage" line falsely grant that argument with a power that it should not have in relation to this discussion, and consider it's use reprehensible.
Should a straight, married couple who either has no children because they don't want to have children or are incapable of having children be classified as a "civil union" since they can't don't have the "ability to mutually, biologically produce children"? What about those whose only "progeny" is adopted children? At what point does a marriage turn into a civil union and vice versa? Gay couples can also get sperm/egg donors just like straight couples. I think it's a hard argument that children who come from donors or are adopted aren't as loved as biological children and that the parents don't have the same bond to those children.
To me, the distinction is baseless. The purpose of marriage isn't to have children, it's purpose is to commit yourself to another person. Plenty of people have kids outside of marriage. However, marriage is a long-term commitment to each other, it's not a commitment to have children. I just don't get why we have to distinguish between marriage and civil unions when the only difference is the sex of the partners.
Quote: No, I am comparing the desire for having a particular label or qualification when I am unable to fulfill the basic requirements of that label or qualification to, well, the same thing.
But here you're equating 'basic requirements' with 'requirements that you invented'.
Procreation is not a basic requirement of any marriage. Period. Never has been, never will be.
What's happened here is that you've established a flawed argument as a truth, and made your argument under the assumption that what you've said is factual. It isn't.
From there you spun off into the weird NBA analogy, which doesn't make sense of any level.
If you wish an adopted child to be treated as your "next of kin", you have to file special paperwork to designate specific authority. Your progeny are automatically your next of kin, you can follow a similar procedure to PREVENT them from having specific authorities, but you can not "designate" that they are NOT your "next of kin". Because they are.
If you choose to believe that the same parental bond is possible, that's a nice thought, but it is simply flat-out wrong. The adopted child is not of your blood. Their genes are not from yours. Their inherited traits are not yours. The characteristics of your family line are not theirs.
Which is better, an adopted home or the natural parents home, for the child? As a general rule, with some exceptions, the home of the biological parents. When there are custodial disputes, as there have been, between a biological parent and an adoptive parent, who almost always wins, and why?
You touched on the long-term aspect of marriage. Why is it long-term? What concern is there that marriage should last a good length of time? What benefit is there to society that the couple stay together? Why not marry someone else every weekend?
Marriage came into custom to ensure property passed down stayed in the same family or bloodline. The taking of the family name by the mother and the child is for this purpose. The passing of property and possessions thru the family was considered to have definite societal benefit.
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?
IMO, it is your assertion that is wrong, always has been, and always will be. Period.
Why doesn't your next door neighbor inherit your house when you die? Since apparently many won't think deeply here, I will explain. Thousands of years of experience have taught anybody paying attention that property passed on to someone who felt a sense of ownership, or pride in creation, or community obligation, to, with, or for that property tended to be more likely to have an interest in maintaining and using it which ultimately benefited the community in the long run.
There is a link to your children that is different from your link to your next door neighbor. Blood and family ties are important, recognition of them benefits society.
I believe I have outlined the reasons that my assertion is correct. What I am hearing in response is mostly "it's not fair". Also a lot of "it's the same thing" when I have outlined the differences in detail. Also a lot of "what about the small percentage of the population that doesn't do it that way?" Right here in our small sample size of people who married and decided not to have children, we have one who wished they had done it differently.
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?
Here's what you've done here. You took your original declaration - that procreation was a 'basic requirement', and then morphed that into 'a purpose' (and I will grant that it is a purpose). Then what you did was simply add in a qualifier, that, if not present, would lead to a nonsensical point -
The qualifier here is 'and I would call it a purpose rather than a requirement'. So if we remove that, we have -
If procreation is not and never has been a requirement of marriage, why was a failure to have children one of the few legitimate reasons to divorce in many societies and cultures?
Which really doesn't make any logical sense. Impotence or infertility being grounds for divorce historically doesn't indicate in any way, shape or form that procreation is a basic requirement of marriage.
Quote: IMO, it is your assertion that is wrong, always has been, and always will be. Period.
It is not wrong that procreation is not a basic requirement of marriage.
If you believe that, you have comprehension problems.
Quote: I believe I have outlined the reasons that my assertion is correct. What I am hearing in response is mostly "it's not fair".
People aren't saying 'it's not fair'. They're saying that your argument lacks logic because it does.
But most importantly - it has absolutely nothing to do with the reality of the situation.
Not a single part of your rambling, nonsensical argument has any validity whatsoever when it comes down to the law or equal rights. None whatsoever.
'It's not designed for this' or 'It's never been this way' is not a valid argument for not allowing gays to marry. No matter how much someone wants something to be.
I've yet to hear a single rational, logical point coming from those who don't think gay marriage should be legal. Not one. It's all rooted in morality, religion, and tradition, none of which have any swaying power when it comes to the law or equality.
The General Accounting Office in 1997 released a list of 1,049 benefits and protections available to heterosexual married couples. These benefits range from federal benefits, such as survivor benefits through Social Security, sick leave to care for ailing partner, tax breaks, veterans benefits and insurance breaks. They also include things like family discounts, obtaining family insurance through your employer, visiting your spouse in the hospital and making medical decisions if your partner is unable to. Civil Unions protect some of these rights, but not all of them.
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?
Well, it's definitely not a requirement because the marriage exists before, during, and after the children are either born or not born. Once you go through whatever state/religious ceremony you need to go through, you're married. That's it. I could be wrong, but I think that's PDR's point.
As far as purpose, it could be one of many purposes, but I think THE purpose of marriage is your willingness to commit to another person. I think American laws, traditions, and cultures would all seemingly point to the core purpose of marriage as being at least the commitment of a permanent loving relationship. People have long been married and not have children and still recognized the purpose of their marriage. I think Daman would agree with that.
Quote: Why doesn't your next door neighbor inherit your house when you die? Since apparently many won't think deeply here, I will explain. Thousands of years of experience have taught anybody paying attention that property passed on to someone who felt a sense of ownership, or pride in creation, or community obligation, to, with, or for that property tended to be more likely to have an interest in maintaining and using it which ultimately benefited the community in the long run.
I think you're getting well off-topic here....
Quote: There is a link to your children that is different from your link to your next door neighbor. Blood and family ties are important, recognition of them benefits society.
I would consider the spouse of a person to be family, as I consider my wife to be family. Using your analogy, I think the courts would agree because our house would transfer to her before it would go to my children. So if recognition of family ties is important, and your spouse is your family...shouldn't there be a recognition of your relationship to your spouse? Or should a homosexual person who dies intestate have all of his property transferred to people besides his or her partner?
Quote: I believe I have outlined the reasons that my assertion is correct. What I am hearing in response is mostly "it's not fair". Also a lot of "it's the same thing"
Then I think you're hearing what you want to hear because I don't get that.
Quote: Also a lot of "what about the small percentage of the population that doesn't do it that way?" Right here in our small sample size of people who married and decided not to have children, we have one who wished they had done it differently.
Then there are those who just say it ain't so.
I assume you're still talking about people who are married that don't want to have children. I don't think it's a small percentage. There's a decent amount of people and I'm sure plenty more on this board besides Daman. It's also an ever-growing sentiment with the millenial generation who has been brought into society during these hard economic times.
The General Accounting Office in 1997 released a list of 1,049 benefits and protections available to heterosexual married couples. These benefits range from federal benefits, such as survivor benefits through Social Security, sick leave to care for ailing partner, tax breaks, veterans benefits and insurance breaks. They also include things like family discounts, obtaining family insurance through your employer, visiting your spouse in the hospital and making medical decisions if your partner is unable to. Civil Unions protect some of these rights, but not all of them.
On a lighter note........and I don't want to step on toes here........but, when my daughter was 5 or 6, she desperately wanted to be a "big sister" to a sibling.
Getting out of the shower with mom one night, (my wife and daughter were in the shower - NOT me) she reiterated that thought.
Now, my wife had her uterus removed a year earlier. So my wife replied "Sooga, I can't have any more kids." and pointed at her surgery scar.
And, bless her heart, Sooga replied "oh yeah, I forgot you had your ukelele taken out."
That was 6 or 7 years ago, and we still laugh about it.
Nice to see that the poster who continually berates others for just making meaningless, pithy comments and not offering a cogent argument has finally made a belated effort at doing so.
If you agree that at least one purpose of marriage is procreation, what are the others, which cannot be fulfilled by just living together?
If not procreating IS, in fact, a good reason to NOT be married, sufficient in many eras when becoming UN-married was very, very difficult, does it not follow that a good reason to BE married is to procreate? Your only refutation of this point is that it does not make sense and is illogical? In what way? Simply claiming it to be illogical does not make it so. Haven't I heard that somewhere before?
Also, if you are going to use difficult to comprehend (for most) double negatives, you should carefully check that your following statements remain coherent with your overall thought process. If I DID have comprehension problems, and if I DID believe your statement, I would be agreeing with you. Comprehension problems, my rear, I can apparently comprehend what you are writing better than you can.
Yet, you wish to call me "nonsensical".
You keep leaving out "the ability" preceding "to procreate".
In fact, SEVERAL people have said it's not fair.
Much of our law IS rooted in religion. Not that religion is all that great, they were just some of the first people who wrote down the obvious.
Also, if you are going to use difficult to comprehend (for most) double negatives, you should carefully check that your following statements remain coherent with your overall thought process. If I DID have comprehension problems, and if I DID believe your statement, I would be agreeing with you. Comprehension problems, my rear, I can apparently comprehend what you are writing better than you can.
Yet, you wish to call me "nonsensical".
Where, exactly, was I unclear here?
I said:
Quote:
Procreation is not a basic requirement of any marriage. Period. Never has been, never will be.
You continued to refute that argument, using wishy-washy language. Basically, you amended your assertion of 'basic requirement' to 'a purpose', but still maintained that my assertion that procreation is not a basic requirement of any marriage to be wrong.
And, yes, go ahead and read through the thread. Your argument is rambling and nonsensical.
Quote:
If not procreating IS, in fact, a good reason to NOT be married, sufficient in many eras when becoming UN-married was very, very difficult, does it not follow that a good reason to BE married is to procreate? Your only refutation of this point is that it does not make sense and is illogical? In what way? Simply claiming it to be illogical does not make it so. Haven't I heard that somewhere before?
Here is a perfect example of nonsensical rambling.
You're arguing here that procreation is a purpose of and a reason to be married.
I've never argued that point.
Your argument is illogical because it has no basis in the current reality of the situation. Your argument holds no validity in a court of law. At no point does your argument explain why homosexuals shouldn't be able to be married in the eyes of the law.
Quote: If I DID have comprehension problems, and if I DID believe your statement, I would be agreeing with you.
How on Earth can you possibly argue that procreation is a 'basic requirement' of marriage?
Quote: You keep leaving out "the ability" preceding "to procreate".
OK, I'll make sure to add it in the next time I make reference to it.
And it still won't give your argument any credibility whatsoever.
At this rate, you've backed yourself into a corner where legally one should be fertile to be eligible for marriage.
If you wish an adopted child to be treated as your "next of kin", you have to file special paperwork to designate specific authority. Your progeny are automatically your next of kin, you can follow a similar procedure to PREVENT them from having specific authorities, but you can not "designate" that they are NOT your "next of kin". Because they are.
If you choose to believe that the same parental bond is possible, that's a nice thought, but it is simply flat-out wrong. The adopted child is not of your blood. Their genes are not from yours. Their inherited traits are not yours. The characteristics of your family line are not theirs.
Which is better, an adopted home or the natural parents home, for the child? As a general rule, with some exceptions, the home of the biological parents. When there are custodial disputes, as there have been, between a biological parent and an adoptive parent, who almost always wins, and why?
You touched on the long-term aspect of marriage. Why is it long-term? What concern is there that marriage should last a good length of time? What benefit is there to society that the couple stay together? Why not marry someone else every weekend?
Marriage came into custom to ensure property passed down stayed in the same family or bloodline. The taking of the family name by the mother and the child is for this purpose. The passing of property and possessions thru the family was considered to have definite societal benefit.
Man, you must not know many people in real life. I have known many that have grown up in bad homes while living with their biological parents. I've known many people that were adopted that have grown and thrived in WONDERFUL homes provided by their adopted parents. An adopted child was CHOSEN. His or her parents wanted them in their lives and jumped through years worth of hoops to get them. Biological parents(other than certain exceptions) merely have sex to have children. Often accidentally getting pregnant. No such thing as an accidental adoption. You need to expand your thinking....
Once a child is adopted there is no extra paper work making the child your heir. Once that child is your adopted progeny they are YOUR child in every sense of the word. And if they aren't every bit as close to you as a blood child would be? That's on YOU man. Not on the child, and not on the institution. That bond isn't an instant result of biology. Because there are a lot of biological parents that don't give a rats ass about their kids welfare.
All of which is beside the point. In the context of this discussion child birth is irrelevant. Gay people want the same right to form a union and be legally joined as the rest of us. So they CAN pass their possessions, legal standing, retirement benefits, etc. on to their heirs. Be it their spouse or adopted children. Why should we deny them the legal benefits you describe? How does allowing them the same rights harm you in any way? Simple answer is, it DOESN'T.
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?
If they have children, there is a reason and societal benefit. No children, no real benefit to long-term committment.
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. The point was that your children come before the next-door neighbor. Blood ties.
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.
Yes I had the ability, but that's not what you said., you said having kids was the purpose for marriage,.
well, not for me and my wife it wasn't. So you are saying our marriage has no purpose without kids.. You are essentially neutralizing the value of my marriage with that crap. What kinda bull is that you are throwing around..
Marriage doesn't have a damn thing to do with kids.. you be single and have kids, you can not engage in sex and still get preggers.
What part of that don't you get?
I don't give a damn about religion, I surely don't give a damn what ANY court has to say. If two people of the same sex wish to marry, It's NOBODY's business but theirs..
Oh,, and by the way, same sex couples can adobt.. and there is a HUGE need for adoptive parents.. Does that not count for something?
Once again, you've typed a lot and not said much. You skipped over my questions so I will post them for you to answer again:
Should a straight, married couple who either has no children because they don't want to have children or are incapable of having children be classified as a "civil union"? In this situation they don't have the "ability to mutually, biologically produce children" which you said was the entire purpose/requirement of marriage?
What about those whose only "progeny" is adopted children? You sort of answered this by saying that they're not your progeny which I think is ridiculous. You really need to talk to someone who has adopted a child. Their bond is just as strong as the biological bond. Anyone who says otherwise has absolutely no clue what they are talking about.
At what point does a marriage turn into a civil union and vice versa?
"It is not wrong that procreation is not a basic requirement of marriage.
If you believe that, you have comprehension problems. "
Clarification of first sentence - It is wrong that procreation is a basic requirement of marriage. This is your main point, correct? With the referenced double negative removed.
Clarification of second sentence, first clause - If you agree with me, with "you" indicating Nelson37 and "me" indicating phil.
Clarification of second sentence, second clause - you fail to understand what was written.
So, what you said is that anyone who thinks that procreation is NOT a basic requirement of marriage has failed to understand. I agree with this.
Requirement, purpose, reason for the institution - all applicable and different only in degree.
Do you suffer from a learning disability or a mental illness?
I'm not asking that to be facetious or digging or to degrade your argument. I'm asking sincerely.
If not, then you're merely flailing to defend a lost argument. I can have sympathy for the former, but I'll certainly attack the latter.
Quote:
Here's your quote, phil.
"It is not wrong that procreation is not a basic requirement of marriage.
If you believe that, you have comprehension problems. "
Clarification of first sentence - It is wrong that procreation is a basic requirement of marriage. This is your main point, correct? With the referenced double negative removed.
I have stated as plain as day on at least three occasions on this thread that, yes, to state that procreation is a basic requirement of marriage is an incorrect statement.
Frankly, I don't see how anyone who is competent can believe otherwise.
Quote:
So, what you said is that anyone who thinks that procreation is NOT a basic requirement of marriage has failed to understand. I agree with this.
That is not at all what I said.
Again, I can't tell if you're flailing to avoid admitting you were wrong, or you have some form of learning disability or mental illness.
I've suspected mental illness in the past, but there really is no evidence of that here. So it's probably a learning disability or an inability to accept losing on a point of contention.
And I will point out yet again a fact which you continue to ignore - nothing you have said makes any logical sense in the realm of the legality of a homosexual couple getting married. There isn't a court in the land that wouldn't stop your argument two or three sentences in, and ask you what your point was. At which point, you would be pointed out that you're point has no point in the matter at hand.
A childless couple is still not common today, historically, quite rare. They still fulfill the basics, but as such a small percentage, can be ignored. Also quite different from a couple which under no circumstances could possible procreate.
As for the adopted versus biological, I disagree. Of course people will tell you that they feel the same about both. It's like your wife asking you if the dress makes her look fat. The answer is often not truthful. You will often hear an adoptive parent say such a thing. Why is that? Such a statement is never made about biological children. They are the standard against which the other condition is measured.
I believe it is you who are mistaken.
As for progeny, it means biological children. Offspring, descendants. Adopted children are not progeny. It is a specific term, with clear meaning. It is often used in wills, usually where the intent concerns keeping property within the bloodline.
As in I can give my father's house, which he willed to me, to my progeny, but not to my adopted children. If I have no progeny and only adopted children the house must be sold and the proceeds distributed as directed in his will.
Get a parent with both alone, and ask this question. Two children are trapped in a burning house. You can only rescue one. One of the children is your biological child, the other is adopted. Choose.
Forcing someone to make such a decision is not pleasant, and not a popular option. Most people don't like to face unpleasant reality, to realize that wishful thinking does not make it so. Blood is thicker than water. The truthful answer is your proof.
It is not a thinking, rational response. It is hard-coded and has been for millions of years. That which is of your blood is more important than that which is not. Nature has determined these rules, through no conscious thought process but by competition with other methods over countless generations. The others failed, this one won.
phil, read it again and then tell me about a learning disability. You yourself used a double negative and failed to understand your own meaning.
Is it your thought that by leaving out the second sentence, people will forget about it? That works with a three-year-old when you steal his nose.
You agree with my analysis of the first sentence. The second sentence is fairly plain. It says that if you agree with the first sentence, you have comprehension problems. SO, the two together comprise you saying that if anyone agrees with YOUR main point, they have a learning disability, or something similar. Disagreeing with yourself could be a mental instability. Definitely not a good sign.
Far, far better minds than yours have had occasion to analyze my mental capabilities. No teacher, professor, or doctor has EVER found them anything but exceptional and extraordinary. 99th percentile on several tests. I've been top of the class and smartest guy in the room most of my life. According to Dr. Hung So Kim, Ohio U, "Super Genius". His words, not mine.
For someone who fails to understand their own statements, your comments are just rich. The leaving out of the second sentence in my quoted example quite possibly indicates a willful disassociation from reality. Not certain at all, I only finished 3rd year psychology in my second year of college.
The omission of that second sentence is an important clue, it is an obvious deception, whether an internal attempt to deceive yourself or an external attempt to deceive others, the obviousness of it does indicate some sort of issue.
You want to dissect what I have said, while you can't clearly understand your own words. Amazing.
Also, for a guy who complains about name calling, and failing to address specific points, you seem to do a lot of name calling and failing to address specific points. Your last post is almost entirely name-calling and insulting.
I could respond with my own belief that I consider you less than human, on a similar level with pond scum, but I won't play your game.
I have spoken of blood ties, parental issues, property issues, numerous good reasons for my points, you have failed to respond to nearly all of them. You then proceed to do many of the things that you bitterly complain about others doing.
Some projection or transference going on here, me thinks.
Quote: You yourself used a double negative and failed to understand your own meaning.
I don't think you understand what a double negative is.
Here's my quote:
Quote: It is not wrong that procreation is not a basic requirement of marriage.
If I wanted to improve the sentence grammatically, I should've inserted the words 'to say' between wrong and that.
But failing to do so doesn't change the meaning of the sentence, nor does it amount to a double negative.
It's just improper grammar. And I wouldn't even call it improper. Rudimentary, maybe.
Quote: SO, the two together comprise you saying that if anyone agrees with YOUR main point, they have a learning disability, or something similar. Disagreeing with yourself could be a mental instability. Definitely not a good sign.
You are just twisting in the wind.
Yes, I believe that if you think that procreation is a basic requirement of marriage, then you probably have some mental issues.
Because it obviously isn't. Saying that it is is equivalent to arguing that grass isn't green.
Procreation IS NOT a basic requirement of marriage.
I find it baffling that you continue to argue this point.
Quote: No teacher, professor, or doctor has EVER found them anything but exceptional and extraordinary. 99th percentile on several tests. I've been top of the class and smartest guy in the room most of my life. According to Dr. Hung So Kim, Ohio U, "Super Genius". His words, not mine.
I'll bet.
Quote:
Also, for a guy who complains about name calling, and failing to address specific points, you seem to do a lot of name calling and failing to address specific points. Your last post is almost entirely name-calling and insulting.
Asking if someone has a learning disability or a mental disorder isn't an insult. I see where it could be perceived as such in the manner of a barb or a dig, but I made it clear that wasn't my intent. I'm not trying to insult you ... you just exhibit a lot of signs that point to some sort of mental illness or learning disability.
On top of all that ... I also speculated that it could just be worming while losing an argument. we all get a little nutty doing that sometimes.
Quote: I could respond with my own belief that I consider you less than human, on a similar level with pond scum, but I won't play your game.
There's the mental illness issues I was referring to.
Quote: .
I have spoken of blood ties, parental issues, property issues, numerous good reasons for my points, you have failed to respond to nearly all of them.
I've actually responded several times, and asked you every single time what any of that has to do with the legality of a homosexual couple being married.
You can't answer, because the answer is nothing. None of your long-winded jibberish even hints at a good example why homosexuals shouldn't have legally recognized marriages.
Daman, don't want to ignore your post but as for the following, "you be single and have kids, you can not engage in sex and still get preggers." I have no clue what you are trying to say here, other than it's not what you meant.
I have addressed adoption numerous times. Is it better than an orphanage, usually, yes. Can it be worse, yes. Is it almost automatically considered NOT AS GOOD as biological parents, yes. I referenced this specifically about court cases weighing custody by an adoptive parent versus a biological parent. Bio-parent wins almost every time. Even when their conditions and status would indicate less resources and less ideal environment for the child, bio-parent wins. Blood relative makes a better parent purely because they are a blood relative. The reasons of blood ties and biological bonding which several have dismissed as just not true are recognized by the courts as established fact, these ties are often the ONLY reason given for the ruling.
As for your own marriage, you yourself indicated you regret the choices you made. To turn this around for you, why didn't you adopt? You could still do it now. If you had a choice, right now, to adopt or have your own child, which would you choose?
Your option, right now, granted by magic. Yours or somebody else's? Which would you prefer?
There's a difference, isn't there?
I'll even take a stab at what you are thinking, right now. At your age, to adopt a child would be a tremendous challenge which you would be somewhat unwilling to undertake. However, if you could raise your own son or daughter, blood of your blood, flesh of your flesh, fruit of your loins, a piece of immortality for the genetic uniqueness that you and your wife represent, so that what you are would not die with you - thinking about it, aren't you?
Quote: A childless couple is still not common today, historically, quite rare. They still fulfill the basics, but as such a small percentage, can be ignored.
Quote: As for the adopted versus biological, I disagree. Of course people will tell you that they feel the same about both. It's like your wife asking you if the dress makes her look fat. The answer is often not truthful. You will often hear an adoptive parent say such a thing. Why is that? Such a statement is never made about biological children. They are the standard against which the other condition is measured.
I can tell you from personal experience this is one of the most ridiculous statements I have ever read and is not even in the realm of the truth.
Quote: If I have no progeny and only adopted children the house must be sold and the proceeds distributed as directed in his will.
ALL THIS does nothing to prove your silly claim that "the purpose of marriage is children" which by now has been debunked several times over, but you cling tight to those straws.
"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.
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?
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.
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??
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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?
Rocket - That is not an opinion. It is established fact. Numerous studies confirm this. "More Likely" DOES NOT MEAN that this will happen in every case. What is does mean is that, compared to a two-parent household, it is, guess what, More Likely.
Opinions are open for debate and discussion. If you don't like them, then you not only can but SHOULD disagree, and state your reasons why or why not.
Facts are NOT open for debate or discussion. You can and should question the nature of how they are determined, and trust but Verify, but to deny them is to stick your head in the sand.
Now listen - I DO NOT WANT you to just take my word for this. Look it up. Research it yourself. Enrich yourself with Accurate information. Cleanse yourself of untruth. If you are unwilling or unable to do this, and would still like to see the information, I will get it for you, but it will come with an admonition to get up off your lazy arse and do something for yourself.
Were you the one who was talking about some lunatic thing where you posted a picture of your wife's ex with a target on his head? Something really crazy like that? There was also some weird rambling about a drug addict neighbor that sounded outlandish and was full of plot holes?
Again, I'm curious as to why the federal government should have any say regarding marriage. I've read the Constitution front and back and couldn't find one darn thing about marriage in it....
How about we leave it to the states to decide, which is actually prescribed by the Tenth Amendment? Anyone? Anyone???
This is why DOMA will not be upheld, specifically
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Marriage has always been a state matter. The federal government has no associated requirements that pertain to the act of marriage. The government recognizes that states have marriage and there are laws that contain marriage references (see tax code) but that is not the same as prescribing the requirements for marriage.
Except when DOMA is considered. The government decided to create a law that said we do not recognize same sex marriages. The tax code, and about 1000 other laws that reference marriage do not apply because the federal government did not like the fact that this state or that state allows same sex marriages. Therefore same sex marriage does not apply from a federal perspective.
Thus it created two type of marriage, whole milk marriage and skim milk marriage, in the words of Ginsberg. And as such it is a clear violation of the 14th amendment under the equal protection clause. However in this case the federal government and not the state is violating its own clause.
It was a mistake for side that wanted to maintain DOMA to bring up procreation as a purpose of marriage as Sotamayor pointed out. I am one of those 50+ year olds (she said 55, but I am not there yet) that will not be married for procreation purposes.
There is no state required fertility test for procreation to establish the legitimacy of marriage, nor is their any age restriction.
My mom remarried in her 70's and it worked out well for her. People get married for a variety of reasons, but procreation is not a requirement.
Procreation was a dumb argument. It probably wont effect the outcome, but it can not be included as a reason because it does not make sense.
Quote: Rocket - That is not an opinion. It is established fact. Numerous studies confirm this. "More Likely" DOES NOT MEAN that this will happen in every case. What is does mean is that, compared to a two-parent household, it is, guess what, More Likely.
Opinions are open for debate and discussion. If you don't like them, then you not only can but SHOULD disagree, and state your reasons why or why not.
Facts are NOT open for debate or discussion. You can and should question the nature of how they are determined, and trust but Verify, but to deny them is to stick your head in the sand.
Now listen - I DO NOT WANT you to just take my word for this. Look it up. Research it yourself. Enrich yourself with Accurate information. Cleanse yourself of untruth. If you are unwilling or unable to do this, and would still like to see the information, I will get it for you, but it will come with an admonition to get up off your lazy arse and do something for yourself.
I can also pull out studies saying that children of rich are more likely to succeed in school and get better grades which creates better opportunities for their life in college and beyond. Does that guarantee everyone to be rich?
Life is NOT fair. You are going to have different sects in society. Outlawing gay marriage is NOT going to create better marriages that do not end in divorce nor is it going to solve the issue of single parents. Where is your argument here going? All it is saying is that children of married parents in a stable family are more likely to be well-rounded and not go crazy in life. This does nothing to make a case to outlaw gay marriage one tiny smudge on a speck of dust. Considering that people in gay marriages typically cannot procreate their own children, there would be no children to speak about unless they adopt, which in that case the children are probably most likely to be in a situation which is more healthier than a foster home.
If gay marriage should be outlawed on the basis that it does nothing towards "our" survival, where is the outrage of people who cannot have children or choose not to have children? Where is the outrage of single parenthood? If you want to ban gay marriage on the basis that children from marriages are more likely to succeed, then a) Divorce should be outlawed no matter what. Spouse beating you? Nope. Spouse cheating on you? nope. You don't love your spouse and you want to marry someone else? Nope. Of course, those situations will most likely be as worse or even worse for the children involved. b) children out of wedlock should be outlawed, so if you and your partner are going to have baby, you only have two choices 1) Get married for life or 2) get an abortion. But of course, that is never going to happen.
But once again, How does gay marriage infringe on your rights?
Phil - I have such a picture, but I have never posted it. I also have a junkie neighbor, and have posted about both. My posts were truthful and accurate. At one point I spoke of him receiving money from a will and you went on some tirade and berated me about how he would not have received this money from some other source, when I clearly stated it was from a will.
Still have never, ever received a PM from you, at any time, on any subject. You have spoken a clear untruth. You have lied.
You do like using double negatives and juvenile word games, don't you?
I also spoke at length about Florida's stand your ground law, and many people told me I was wrong and the law did not say what I said it did. Then the Travon Martin case came up, the law was posted, and, amazingly enough, it said exactly what it said it did, almost word for word.
Charger - You have to some extent helped make my point. Two parent households are a better environment to raise children. Does not mean extreme measures should be taken to ensure all children are raised in that way. It means just exactly what I said it means, which is that two parent households are better for raising children. That's it.
What societal actions we should take is an option. It would appear to be a good idea to take steps so that couples take marriage more seriously. Those steps could have a number of forms. Understanding that the raising of children is one of the, if not the absolute #1, most important tasks a couple can undertake, in a long-term social view, would be an important step.
Not making a joke out of marriage would be another.
The issue of infringement of rights is often brought up. What "rights" are infringed when the stock market crashes? What constitutional protections are violated? None, but it is still a bad thing. What rights are violated when your local school does a poor job teaching? None, but it is still a bad thing. What constitutional issue is raised when the crime rate goes up among juveniles? None, but it is still a bad thing.
I'll take a page from the thesis I wrote for Dr Kim - Social structures and conventions are not enforced by any specific body, although they can and do change. Both the mechanisms of change and enforcement are not external to the society, they are and must be internal. The society itself decides what it wants to be. It makes itself as it chooses. A thorough understanding of the consequences of those choices is necessary for optimum function of that society. There is no real mechanism to ensure that correct choices are made, other than incorrect ones can result in the society in question ceasing to exist.
Phil - I have such a picture, but I have never posted it.
IIRC you said you had it posted on your front door or something?
That's around when I started to think 'jeez, it sounds like this guy has some mental problems'. Couple that with the delusions of grandeur about 99th percentile intelligence among other things, and I can certainly see where my thought process came to be.
Anyway, I really hope you seek some professional help or therapy if you don't already. I'll leave it at that.
Phil - I have such a picture, but I have never posted it.
IIRC you said you had it posted on your front door or something?
That's around when I started to think 'jeez, it sounds like this guy has some mental problems'. Couple that with the delusions of grandeur about 99th percentile intelligence among other things, and I can certainly see where my thought process came to be.
Anyway, I really hope you seek some professional help or therapy if you don't already. I'll leave it at that.
Well, excuse me for thinking that the use of the word "posted" would imply placing it in view, here, on this message board, where we are, um, posting. Are you for some reason using the phrase "PM" in some non-standard way?
It was indeed on my front door, was viewed by many authorities, and agreed to by most to be a reasonable and necessary precaution in the circumstances. It was mainly to . off my soon-to-be ex-wife. Worked fantastically well. The memory of her complaining bitterly to the cop that I had "ALTERED" her ex-husbands child-molester mug shot still brings a smile to my face, really, thanks for reminding me of that. Brightens my whole day.
I can provide info on how to view the man's mugshot on the Florida state sex offender's website, as described earlier. I still have the modified target with the applicable law printed on it, as well. I could scan that.
You have lied about the PMs. Your reasons for doing so, and your numerous personal attacks, coupled with the nature of these attacks, go along with your unending cynicism and admitted questionable character traits, to combine together and indicate that there is indeed someone in need of help here. It does not matter whether you choose to believe I had three years coursework of University Psychology training, or not. You have offered no qualifications whatsoever. I think you have serious issues.
I have offered verification, while you are on the verge of being forced to admit that you lied. I have not accused you of lying, except where it is clear, obvious, and indisputable that you have. The weaseling has already begun, just as I predicted.
Prove to me that I am wrong in a statement of fact and I have absolutely no problem admitting it, far from it. To obtain accurate information and discard untruth is a value held high in the very core of my being. A lifetime of such belief, and vigorous desire to learn, coupled with a prodigious memory, is the main reason for my absolute certainty, verified through experience, that while I can be wrong, on factual matters, it just doesn't happen very often.
I dislike the speaking of untruth, separate from deliberate lying. I despise liars.
Seems as if there are 4 current NFL Players that are thinking of coming out together as gay.
Quote:
Ayanbadejo: Gay NFL players might come out together
By Gregg Rosenthal Around The League Editor Published: April 5, 2013 at 10:19 a.m. Updated: April 5, 2013 at 02:52 p.m.
Brendon Ayanbadejo isn't sure whether he'll get another chance to play in the NFL. But the issue that he cares so much about, same-sex equality, is likely to remain a hot topic in the league.
Advancing a CBS report earlier this offseason that a gay NFL player was considering coming out publicly, Ayanbadejo says that a group of players might do it together.
"I think it will happen sooner than you think," Ayanbadejo told The Baltimore Sun on Friday. "We're in talks with a handful of players who are considering it. There are up to four players being talked to right now and they're trying to be organized so they can come out on the same day together. It would make a major splash and take the pressure off one guy. It would be a monumental day if a handful or a few guys come out."
That's an understatement. It would be a seminal moment in American sports history. Ayanbadejo indicates the organization for such a moment is very real. For multiple players to come out at the same time would only amplify the message.
Follow Gregg Rosenthal on Twitter @greggrosenthal.
I wonder how many have boy friends and want to get married?
Quote: It was indeed on my front door, was viewed by many authorities, and agreed to by most to be a reasonable and necessary precaution in the circumstances. It was mainly to . off my soon-to-be ex-wife. Worked fantastically well. The memory of her complaining bitterly to the cop that I had "ALTERED" her ex-husbands child-molester mug shot still brings a smile to my face, really, thanks for reminding me of that. Brightens my whole day.
Quote: If you want to bicker with Phil, could you do it in PM? Nobody cares whether he PM'ed you or not except you. Obsession is NOT our friend
Oh the irony! Fighting about whether or not a PM was sent via PM. Heehee! That just tickled me. And my thought with this whole did he PM or not has been "obsess much"
I would like truth placed on public view. It does not belong in a closed room. Maybe that's just my opinion.
IMO someone who has lied is likely to lie again. It was my understanding that at least some people here are concerned about untruthful statements.
He has made numerous, public, personally disparaging comments, rather than discuss or debate points of the discussion, which I have attempted to do.
It's just one question, which he refuses to answer.
As for everybody else being bothered, I was told that it was just me and phil here, anyway.
His tactics are those of Joe McCarthy. If you all here choose to accept that, hey, that is your choice. Fine, do not ask for truth. Ask only for that which you wish to hear.
History tells us that usually doesn't work out so well.
As with society, this group will decide what it wants to be. Each member decides how they wish to participate, if at all. Such is life.
I know it was a rhetorical question, but, yes, I do.
When I have a question and no answer I dig until I find one. That's pretty much what I do for a living, fixing computers. Find answers. Obsessively. It puts food on my table, and provides more, accurate, information. With which you can make judgements which are more likely to be correct.
I believe the answer to the current question reveals much more than whether he did, or did not, send me a PM. I'll leave it to you to consider what those might be.
I am curious, when you have a question, which you consider to be important, and you do not have an answer, what do you do? Just forget about it?
Actually, yes, I do just forget about it. Clearly, the question isn't going to be answered so wasting more time trying to dig is pointless and, as I said, a waste of time. Why should I waste my time obsessing about something for which I will not receive an answer? Not worth it to me. Besides, this is a message board, not real life. The only people who I obsess about an answer from are the people who work for me, are married to me, or sprang from my body.
His tactics are those of Joe McCarthy. If you all here choose to accept that, hey, that is your choice. Fine, do not ask for truth. Ask only for that which you wish to hear.
History tells us that usually doesn't work out so well.
As with society, this group will decide what it wants to be. Each member decides how they wish to participate, if at all. Such is life.
I apologize for enjoying myself to the point of punishing others ... I really do ...
...but stuff like this is pure gold, and intentional or not, there's been some great comedy in this thread.
Has anyone offered up a legitimate- I repeat- legitimate reason why some American Citizens should be prevented from enjoying the same rights as the rest of America's Citizens?
I ask this, because my personal view has less to do with the current Americans in question than it has to do with the past Americans in Our Nation's history.
As a kid in the late '60's, I walked in an "Equal Rights March" in my home town... side-by-side with My Father. Two days later, Our Town erupted in virulent racial violence... because some Blacks (and Whites, and Evangelicals, and...[insert name of 'social justice group' here] ) had the audacity to hold up traffic for two hours on a hot July Saturday afternoon.
I'll never forget the sight of My Moms, sobbing over the laundry sink in the basement, as she repeatedly dunked My Pops' starched white uniform shirts in a pool of black RIT dye, saying, "Bob... I can't get them dark enough..." (Pops was watch commander on 3rd shift that week. There were roving gangs of Blacks and Whites, tossing Molotov Cocktails. Reports of rooftop snipers taking potshots were common over that 7-10 day stretch of 'civic unrest'..) I'll never forget My Pops gently taking her stained hands in his, and saying: "Nita- you've done good... they don't have to be pitch-black.... you got'em dark enough. I'm proud of you, sweetheart."
(Scared the spit outta me- I was just old enough to feel the emotions between them, and that was enough to let me know that s#!t was truly real, yo-)
When I think back on those days, and how deeply-felt the emotions were on both sides of the racial justice issue, I can recall, first hand, how much it impacted my life. I was 11 years old- and faced with the very real possibility that I could lose My Father over these national issues that I was only just beginning to understand.
It was a profoundly transformative week in my life. When it was over, I talked to My Pops, and asked him some hard questions. Among them, one exchange stands out.
[Me]: "Dad- last week, we marched with guys like BeBop and Big Robb... and this week, those guys were 'The Enemy.' Who's good- and who's bad?"
[Pops]: Bobby... last week, we all marched to make this world better. This week, I did my job- to make our town safer. BeBop and Big Robb aren't The Enemy- they're just fighting in a different way than me... and I hope they change their minds... so we can march together again, some day."
[Me]: "What if they don't? [Pops]: Then I'll put'em behind bars until they see it MY way"...
Pops was 'hardcore,' that way...
________________________
I recounted this story from The Life of Li'l Clemdawg to explain why I support the Gay Marriage movement.
I'm a heterosexual male in a (faithful) monogamous relationship. I hail from an ethnically-diverse background that saw some members of my ancestry legally barred from rights and privileges afforded to others. It took an act of congress (in 1965) to allow every member of my family to vote, and to enjoy all the rights and privileges that others had always taken for granted.... and if it takes another act of congress to ensure that the presently-disenfranchised members of My Family to gain the rights that I, as a heterosexual male enjoy- I promise you this:
.... I'll attend any march, shout into any microphone, be filmed on any local "News @ Eleven" broadcast, answer any public question honestly, and do everything I can to ensure that every American gets treated as a True American.
If I fail... America fails to be what she purports to be... ...and I will not let that happen.
Clem, first I think that "playing the race card" does not belong in this discussion. I think the analogy is flawed; while some people may have an unreasonable hatred of gay folks, I and many others against gay marriage do not.
Now I'll tell you a story.
Back in the 1950's, my father sold a boat thru a newspaper ad, and told me this story. "Man drives up in his car and gets out. He's a black man. " shrug. My father took no notice of race. "Looks at the boat, hands me a check, we shake hands. Look, to seal the deal, I'll take you and your family out to dinner, anyplace you want, my treat. The man looks back at the car, at his family, and says, 'well, you know the town, you pick the place', my dad says, 'no, no, my treat, you pick the place'.
The man looks down, literally scuffs his shoe in the dirt, looks up at my dad, and says ' well, you know, there's some places in this town where you and I could not sit down and eat together. Long pause. "well, let me tell you something. " Then, with feeling, "If they won't serve YOU, they won't serve ME either. Either TODAY, or EVER AGAIN".
At 12 or so, I knew such things did happen, but I had a hard time grasping it. When I told my son that story, he had no idea why such a thing could possibly happen, and I am proud of that.
A part of the reason for a strong belief in Civil Rights is that belief that the concept of Civil Rights is believed to be a strong concept. The concept should not be weakened. There have been movements to grant Civil Rights to other primates, for instance. Is it an Act of Evil to not do so?
Similarly, one small reason some people feel that they have a strong, long-term bond of marriage is that they believe that the long-term bonds of marriage itself are strong. The concept carries a self-reinforcing power, because of our belief in it. A part of that belief involves the strength of bonds thru children, and the long-term concerns that arise thru having children.
The belief in the strength of the concept should not be weakened. It is, to me, not a question of law or of fairness. It is a question of long-term survival.
Quote: while some people may have an unreasonable hatred of gay folks, I and many others against gay marriage do not.
From reading all the hidden hatred in your posts, I would have to disagree.
Quote: Similarly, one small reason some people feel that they have a strong, long-term bond of marriage is that they believe that the long-term bonds of marriage itself are strong. The concept carries a self-reinforcing power, because of our belief in it. A part of that belief involves the strength of bonds thru children, and the long-term concerns that arise thru having children.
Um, yes....that's exactly it...why can't every couple have that belief??
Long-term survival? Seriously? There have been people in every generation that didn't have kids. There have been people that have adopted. People today have smaller families than in my parents time...why don't you start preaching that everyone go back to having 13 kids if you are so worried about our future.
Nelson, you are incredibly hypocritical in your arguments...do you even see that?
Nelson: only a deep-seated core of bigotry could allow someone to think that disallowing another human being's rights is not just okay. but somehow right and proper. Your argument concerning my "playing the race card" conveniently ignores the similarities between these cases, which is why I wrote as I did.
This IS a civil rights issue, whether you choose to recognize it or not. An entire group of Americans is being treated differently than the rest of us. It's the very definition of discrimination- and it's not what this country is supposed to be about.
Virtually every unrepresented or under-represented group of Americans have had to swim upstream against the flow of resistance, ignorance and bigotry. In almost every case, history has shown them to prevail. This is no different, whether it infringes upon your 'comfort level' or not.
I believe (as do many others who have written in this thread) that your initial premise was flawed from the get-go, and has not stood the test of scrutiny by others. In no way is our "long-term survival" being threatened by granting Americans equal rights and protections... unless you think that allowing gay marriage is going to somehow turn everyone else gay. You don't "catch a case of the gays" with a handshake. You don't get "infected" with it by sitting next to someone on the bus, and allowing two people to get married doesn't shake the foundation of your marriage in any way. Folks will continue to pump out babies even if a same-sex couple does not.
This will be our last exchange on this subject, because it's apparent that none of us will ever be able to talk you out of your firmly-held, poorly-reasoned, and woefully misguided preconceptions. Further discourse on this topic would be a waste of my valuable time. Enjoy your banter with others, but I'm signing off of "The Nelson Show."
Nothin' more to see here, folks... I'm driving past this car wreck.
Your entire premise is based on a logical fallacy that
Allowing gay marriage ---> more gay people
People are either straight or they are gay. Allowing people who already together does not change anything. If gay marriage becomes legal tomorrow, do you really think straight people will just go "become gay"?
Well, Joker, I never said nor implied anything of the kind, but that's OK.
I understand the prevailing thought that even expressing the opinion that anyone or any group just possibly should not get everything they ask for, just because they really, really want it, means that I hate such people and want them all to die.
Doesn't matter if I believe it, you all are just so certain, it must be so.
Mostly the same folks wanted divorce to be simpler and easier, too. A well-meaning idea that has had far-reaching consequences, many of them bad.
The economic policies that have bankrupted this country came from the same mindset. We have to do it because it makes so many people feel good, practical implications be damned.
there were 10 million viewers?
he's back from Weinerville (in disguise). 
