 |
| |
|
|
Mordoch
|
|
Denver, Colorado
Jan 2002
time: 05:32
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
If through no fault of their own, a couple finds themselves infertile, they should be allowed to marry. We don't see this in the example of gay unions, where perfectly fertile people deny their own fertility. So your requirement would fall under the charge of false analogy. The vast majority of married people who are infertile, cannot help their condition.
I argue that an increase in population will provide an increase in both the total population and quality of life. So this is a false dichotomy. Given a proper system, an increase in population will not lower the quality of life. |
So you're arguing that people are sinning when they don't have large families to increase the population. This still doesn't particularly seem relevant given that the widespread availability of artifial insemination allows gay men to father children and lesbians to have kids if they choose. I can tell you that in the last dozen years Colorado has had a huge increase in population and its defiantely harmed the general quality of life through issues such as the loss of open space and far worse traffic congestion. You simply can't solve these issues with management techniques, even the most effective solution such as apartments reduce the amount of living space individuals can enjoy, thereby harming their quality of life. You also seem to be ignoring issues with worldwide enviromental damage being magnified by a general population increase.
quote:
Fine. Would you accept the study if I gave you the evidence, or would you dismiss the methodology as 'biased, etc?'
If you would be willing to accept the evidence regardless of the conclusion, than I would be most happy to post the evidence. Otherwise I see no point. |
Its unreasonable in any debate to expect the other side to blindly accept the results of a random study without seeing the methodology involved. A group with an agenda could conduct only a couple year study, deliberating picking homosexual couples with already somewhat grown children with problems, and picking model children for their heterosexual couples. This would allow a group to end up with a study that had the results they wanted. I certainly am willing to take a close look at any studies you'd like to present, and at the very least you may convince me you have some sort of scientific basis to support your view that children raised in heterosexual families are in general better off. The fact that I feel its necessary to examine the legitimacy of any study you present, as would be true in any argument involving anyone with any subject, is certainly not justification for you failing to show any examples if you have of through studies with valid methodologies involved.
Last edited by Mordoch on 24-11-2003 at 15:30
|
|
| |
|
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:32
|
|
BK,
quote:
In marriage, you are making a contract with the state as well as with the other person. This is why the state has a role in marriage. You want to do away with civil marriages altogether, and leave it up to the churches? Go right ahead. |
Ideally, the contract would be between two people, and that's it. At best, the state is a neutral observer.
quote:
Just what? Correct? I have given numerous non-religious arguments in this thread. Please continue to ignore them. |
Yes, but the fact remains that your religious beliefs have a lot to do with your beliefs about gay marriage. To deny that is preposterous.
quote:
What proportion of marriages happen at this age? Very few. |
And what proportion of marriages, adjusted for population, would be between gays and lesbians? Not a lot, I assure you.
quote:
The bible is very clear, in condemning homosexual relationships as sin. |
And if it didn't, I seriously doubt you'd have a big problem with it. It might disgust you, on the same lines that making out in public disgusts some people, but don't tell me you'd call for the criminalization of homosexuality and denying homosexuals the right to marry.
quote:
The state recognises the marriage. Otherwise, what you have isn't a marriage according to the legal definition. In this sense, the state has to be part of the contract. |
Really? So if I make a contract with you, to, for example, work on your roof, am I also making a contract with the government? And is the nature of that contract such that the government can tell both of us that we have no right to contract with each other for roofing work, unless it's a certain color? And if you answer yes to either of those questions, is that MORAL?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ramo
|
 |
Austin, Texas, USA
Oct 1999
time: 23:32
|
|
quote:
Marriage is more than just a legal term, it describes a contract that can be and has been made in the absence of any law. |
Certainly not in the US. That's why gay people can't get married. That's why polygamists can't marry multiple people.
quote:
Your argument is no different than claiming the Nazis never stole because stealing is a "legal" term and those in power can define it any way they want. Try that with murder and you negate the holocaust... |
The Nazi's didn't steal, nor murder (except when they weren't in power) since stealing is an illegal seizure and murder is an illegal killing. While in power, they certainly did seize and kill, and that in no way "negates" the Holocaust.
quote:
The point is, even using your argument, marriage doesn't include homosexual unions. |
And why exactly are you making that point? Let's go over this again. The state can define what a marriage is. Thus it can change the definition of what a marriage is.
quote:
That's a different issue that has nothing to do with re-defining a word that describes an act involving heterosexuals to include homosexuals. |
Not according to Candians.
quote:
Why not re-define "heterosexual" to mean homosexual while we're at it? |
Beccause heterosexual is not a word that's defined by the law, while marriage is.
quote:
Only insofar as the state recognizes any other contract, which is to say, they don't interfere. |
I wouldn't say that. It should interfere if, for instance, minors are involved.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
CharlesBHoff
|
|
el paso texas
May 2002
time: 05:32
|
|
Congress and the GOP are playing with than double edge sword when they trie to use this than a electron year. The Full Faith and Credit clause must not be abuse. It Congress allow State not to recognite gray marraige of one State that State can take action against other State by not recognite they marraige and driver lience and etc. That why our Founder put the Full Faith and Credit clause in the Constitution they biggest mistake was allow crongress anything to do with Full Faith and Credit clause.
Other nation recognite other nation marraige expect for America, when than Saudis who is legal marriage to his four wifes have no problen bring then to other nation as his wifes expect in America. Yet America want other Nation to recognite
if Marraige under Full Faith and Credit clause. To have than workable Full Faith and Credit clause it must be obey by all parties without any condition like it 2 man or 2 woman are marraige to each other or than man who is marraige to 4 wifes at the same time.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Berzerker
|
 |
topeka, kansas,USA
May 1999
time: 23:32
|
|
Imran - You say spending a night in a hotel is interstate commerce if the traveller comes from out of state. So why can the state you're visiting charge you a sales tax when the same state cannot charge you a sales tax on goods you order from your home state? If I go to Maine and spend time in a hotel, I'm subject to Maine's sales taxes. If I stay here and order goods from LL Bean, the states of Maine and Kansas cannot charge me with any sales taxes. Why? Because the former is not interstate commerce and the latter is...
Hell, even with all the perversions of the Interstate Commerce Clause, Congress and the courts recognise the difference you fail to see. According to your argument, no state could ever charge a sales tax without congressional permission because some people live in other states.
Ramo - quote:
Certainly not in the US. That's why gay people can't get married. That's why polygamists can't marry multiple people. |
The concept of marriage preceded government, and the term for that concept preceded government.
quote:
The Nazi's didn't steal, nor murder (except when they weren't in power) since stealing is an illegal seizure and murder is an illegal killing. While in power, they certainly did seize and kill, and that in no way "negates" the Holocaust. |
Stealing and murder are also concepts that preceded government as did the terms for these actions. Only in these debates do we hear people claiming the Nazis didn't steal and murder people...quite telling...
quote:
And why exactly are you making that point? Let's go over this again. The state can define what a marriage is. Thus it can change the definition of what a marriage is. |
And that is what the states have done. Marriage doesn't include same sex unions even according to how government defines marriage, but I reject this notion that one group of people - government - can walk in and start re-defining words. That's why I don't have to put forth the argument that the Nazis didn't steal or murder people, they did and you won't find survivors of their crimes agreeing with you that they didn't.
quote:
Beccause heterosexual is not a word that's defined by the law, while marriage is. |
Concepts and words precede laws. Obviously "heterosexual" is defined by law wrt what constitutes a marriage. Besides, government could define heterosexual as a legal term, true?
Last edited by Berzerker on 24-11-2003 at 18:34
|
|
| |
|
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:32
|
|
Ramo,
I'm not gonna get into the minors issue, so let's keep this to contracts between consenting adults.
Imran, DD, etc.,
I think you guys can all agree that the Constitution doesn't actually MEAN the ICC can be used as a blanket grant of power to the federal government. It can be INTERPRETED that way, but lawyers can interpret anything anyone says any way they want. That's like if I say, in public, "I'd kill for a hamburger", and then somebody knocks over a McDonald's and kills everyone working there, they come arrest me on the justification that, hey, I said I'd kill for a burger. 
That's why you have to look at the intent. Now I'll grant you that "original intent" is an impossible standard to use all the time, however, when it is clear what the intent is, I don't see why it shouldn't be used.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Rogan Josh
|
|
As a matter of interest, is it discrimination that a brother and sister aren't allowed to marry? After all, they are not being treated in the same way by the law as a non-related couple.
If ''marriage'' between same sex couples is guaranteed by the constitution, why is ''marriage'' between siblings not?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Rogan Josh
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by MrFun
And slippery slope arguments never fail to lose their popularity . . . . . |
This wasn't a slippery slope argument. I happen to believe that if siblings want to make a sincere comitment to one another, gaining the tax breaks and legal status of ''partners'', they should be allowed to. Why is the state insisting that we have sex with the person we are married to? It's none of their damn business.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:32
|
|
quote:
As a matter of interest, is it discrimination that a brother and sister aren't allowed to marry? After all, they are not being treated in the same way by the law as a non-related couple.
If ''marriage'' between same sex couples is guaranteed by the constitution, why is ''marriage'' between siblings not? |
I agree. Let consenting adults do as they please.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ned
|
 |
of Aptos, CA
Oct 1999
time: 21:32
|
|
Charles B Hoff, the Defense of Marriage Act is already law. It was not strictly a Republican bill. It had bi-partisan support and was supported by Democrat president Bill Clinton.
"In the summer of 1996, Congress considered and passed the Defense of Marriage act (DOMA) with bipartisan support . Proposed by Republicans, it was endorsed by the Democratic President and a majority of Senators and Representatives of both parties votes for the Act. Yet DOMA is widely misunderstood, reflecting some inaccurate meadia coverage.
DOMA simply establishes that if any state chooses to legalize same-sex marriage, it may not force that radical redefinition of marriage upon other states or upon the federal government over their objection. DOMA simply preserves the right of the other states and of Congress to decide for themselves whether to legalize or recognize same-sex marrige.
Thus, the Defense of Marriage Act might well be called the protection of Federalism in Family Law Act. The main principles underlying DOMA are respect for federalism and for respect for the right of each state to settle the same-sex marriage definition questions for itself.
DOMA contains two operative sections. Section 2 provides that federal full faith and credit rules neither prohibit nor compel any state to recognize same-sex marriage laws, records or judgments from another state. Nothing in Section 2 bars any state from legalizing same-sex marriage or from recognizing same-sex marriages or decrees from another state. Each state is still free to give effect to another state's same-sex mariages if it chooses to do so.Section 2 simply clarifies that the federal full faith and credit rules do not force states to recognize same-sex marriages legalized in another state.
Thus, DOMA adopts a "neutral" position, that federal full faith and credit neither prohibits nor requires any state to recognize same-sex marriage acts, records and judgments from other states. It simply removes the potential federal compulsion (one way or the other) and leaves it up to each state to decide for itself what effect to give to same-sex marriage. The right of each state to decide whether to recognize marriages from other states that violate the public policy of each state is long-established. Both the first and second Restatement of Law, Conflict of Laws explicitly acknowledge that a state is not obligated to recognize marriages from other jurisdictions that violate its strong public policy.
Congress clearly has the power to enact legislation defining the full faith and credit effect of states' laws, records and judgments. The very language of the Full Faith and credit Clause of the Constitution (Article IV, §1) explicitly provides that "Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records, and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof." The Supreme Court has repeatedly acknowledged Congress' constitutional authority to establish full faith and credit rules.
Section 3 of DOMA provides that for purpose of interpreting federal law, "the word 'marriage' means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife..." This defines what the term "marriage" means when used in federal law (such as federal income tax law and federal social security laws) only. The definition of such terms is a routine function of any legal system..
The definition of marriage in section 3 is not imposed upon any state law. DOMA says only that if a state chooses to legalize same-sex marriage within its own jurisdiction, that will not force the federal government to use that radical redefinition of marriage in federal programs and federal laws. Section 3 does not interfere with the ability of the states to define and regulate marriage for themselves. Nor does it deprive Congress of the ability to define marriage some other way if it were to decide that for some particular program that same-sex unions should be treated as marriages. However, DOMA accurately clarifies the fact that Congress has never intended to include homosexual unions when extending federal benefits to "marriages."
http://www.nla.org/library/fall96/doma.html
|
|
| |
|
|
|
CharlesBHoff
|
|
el paso texas
May 2002
time: 05:32
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Rogan Josh
As a matter of interest, is it discrimination that a brother and sister aren't allowed to marry? After all, they are not being treated in the same way by the law as a non-related couple.
If ''marriage'' between same sex couples is guaranteed by the constitution, why is ''marriage'' between siblings not? |
It happen in Mass by mistake once. Than bother and sister where sent to different orphance run by the Roman Church and where make part of different families. Met fall in love that marraige in the Roman Church nobody notice that they where brother and sister an somehow the record got lost( paper record). They have no kids, when they where in they 60"s the Church notice they make than mistake, the Church and State government decide to take no action because they where happy marraige to each other. Some time later than cheap Funt Christian decide to use this issue in a election than if backfire on him big time. First when running against the gonvor the gonvor said the reason the State didnot force
them to unmarry thenself was they didnot have kids and they where deeply in love with each other and the Church and State decide not to tell them that they where brother and sister. Than by him bring it up he cause them pain and suffering shame on you Mr Fundi Christian.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
CharlesBHoff
|
|
el paso texas
May 2002
time: 05:32
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ned
Charles B Hoff, the Defense of Marriage Act is already law. It was not strictly a Republican bill. It had bi-partisan support and was supported by Democrat president Bill Clinton.
"In the summer of 1996, Congress considered and passed the Defense of Marriage act (DOMA) with bipartisan support . Proposed by Republicans, it was endorsed by the Democratic President and a majority of Senators and Representatives of both parties votes for the Act. Yet DOMA is widely misunderstood, reflecting some inaccurate meadia coverage.
DOMA simply establishes that if any state chooses to legalize same-sex marriage, it may not force that radical redefinition of marriage upon other states or upon the federal government over their objection. DOMA simply preserves the right of the other states and of Congress to decide for themselves whether to legalize or recognize same-sex marrige.
Thus, the Defense of Marriage Act might well be called the protection of Federalism in Family Law Act. The main principles underlying DOMA are respect for federalism and for respect for the right of each state to settle the same-sex marriage definition questions for itself.
DOMA contains two operative sections. Section 2 provides that federal full faith and credit rules neither prohibit nor compel any state to recognize same-sex marriage laws, records or judgments from another state. Nothing in Section 2 bars any state from legalizing same-sex marriage or from recognizing same-sex marriages or decrees from another state. Each state is still free to give effect to another state's same-sex mariages if it chooses to do so.Section 2 simply clarifies that the federal full faith and credit rules do not force states to recognize same-sex marriages legalized in another state.
Thus, DOMA adopts a "neutral" position, that federal full faith and credit neither prohibits nor requires any state to recognize same-sex marriage acts, records and judgments from other states. It simply removes the potential federal compulsion (one way or the other) and leaves it up to each state to decide for itself what effect to give to same-sex marriage. The right of each state to decide whether to recognize marriages from other states that violate the public policy of each state is long-established. Both the first and second Restatement of Law, Conflict of Laws explicitly acknowledge that a state is not obligated to recognize marriages from other jurisdictions that violate its strong public policy.
Congress clearly has the power to enact legislation defining the full faith and credit effect of states' laws, records and judgments. The very language of the Full Faith and credit Clause of the Constitution (Article IV, §1) explicitly provides that "Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records, and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof." The Supreme Court has repeatedly acknowledged Congress' constitutional authority to establish full faith and credit rules.
Section 3 of DOMA provides that for purpose of interpreting federal law, "the word 'marriage' means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife..." This defines what the term "marriage" means when used in federal law (such as federal income tax law and federal social security laws) only. The definition of such terms is a routine function of any legal system..
The definition of marriage in section 3 is not imposed upon any state law. DOMA says only that if a state chooses to legalize same-sex marriage within its own jurisdiction, that will not force the federal government to use that radical redefinition of marriage in federal programs and federal laws. Section 3 does not interfere with the ability of the states to define and regulate marriage for themselves. Nor does it deprive Congress of the ability to define marriage some other way if it were to decide that for some particular program that same-sex unions should be treated as marriages. However, DOMA accurately clarifies the fact that Congress has never intended to include homosexual unions when extending federal benefits to "marriages."
http://www.nla.org/library/fall96/doma.html |
It is undermined Full Faith and Credit clause. It you are going to have that type of clause it must be apply 100 % of the time or not at all. Some states are not going to allow other state to decide that they marriage arenot vaid in their state do you want than other Cival War.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:32.
Apolyton Time is 00:32. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
24-11-2003 06:44
|