 |
| |
|
|
molly bloom
|
 |
Lundenwic
Oct 2001
time: 15:32
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
and then tell the gay mafia to shove their "gay marriage" bullshit up their asses? |
Always nice when people reveal the source of their thinking. A bit fundamental in your case, Drake.
By the way, any more pathetic right wing cliches to go with 'gay mafia'? I mean, it's not like I haven't heard it before, but I think you can claim first use in this thread.
'Eh, you come to me on the day of my son's non-wedding, ....'
Of course, we'd have to have Sir Ian McKellen instead of Marlon Brando, and he'd need some serious padding.
So who do you figure for the heads of the other 'gay mafia' families? And is it still geographical distribution, or is it perhaps related to sexual fetishes?
I know, the Cali gay cartel could be run by seventies retro coke queen Pablo Discobar! And the Detroit Black Panther gang by drag queen Pamela Motown!
And the Sisters of the American Revolution by Bertha Fanation!
Gosh, Mr. Tungsten, you're such an inspiration.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:32
|
|
Ned,
quote:
I am surprised no one had mentioned Reynolds v. U.S., 98 U.S. 145 (1878). It based its decision against polygamy on the odiousness of polygamy to Western civilization. I am sure something similar lies at the root of oppostion to gay marriages. |
I'm not sure that citing case law from 1878 makes a very good argument, quite honestly. "The odiousness of polygamy" really has nothing to do with the legalities, and more to do with someone's personal feelings.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
CharlesBHoff
|
|
el paso texas
May 2002
time: 05:32
|
|
The genocide that Hitler order carry out was one of the reason that Germany lost the war. First when they carry out the Genocide in the East before they did in the West, by fire squard they have to have 5 or 6 replacement fireing squard as each fireing was under alot of moral and mental stress alot more than normal troop in combat. After 3 week they have to give each squard 2 to 4 month to recover from stress. Stalin kill more people with Genocide than Hilter did, the Russia people greet the Germany Armies as Liborate from Stalin rule untril the SS death squad start to kill ordinate Russian for no reason, they support went to Stalin.
Second when they start to use death camp they trie up they transportion network moveing people to the death camp that
they military logistal support suffer.
To add the regulate military didnot like the SS death squad on the Eastern Front in fact they dislike then very much. This also lead to the Germany military plot to kill Hilter in 1944 which fail.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
CharlesBHoff
|
|
el paso texas
May 2002
time: 05:32
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ned
I am surprised no one had mentioned Reynolds v. U.S., 98 U.S. 145 (1878). It based its decision against polygamy on the odiousness of polygamy to Western civilization. I am sure something similar lies at the root of oppostion to gay marriages.
Here is a snippet from the case:
"Polygamy has always been odious among the northern and western nations of Europe, and, until the establishment of the Mormon Church, was almost exclusively a feature of the life of Asiatic and of African people. At common law, the second marriage was always void, and from the earliest history of England polygamy has been treated as an ofence against society....
From that day to this we think it may safely be said there never has been a time in any State of the Union when polygamy has not been an offence against society, cognizable by the civil courts and punishable with more or less severity. In the face of all this evidence, it is impossible to believe that the constitutional guaranty of religious freedom was intended to prohibit legislation in respect to this most important feature of social life. Marriage, while from its very nature a sacred obligation, is nevertheless, in most civilized nations, a civil contract, and usually regulated by law. Upon it society may be said to be built, and out of its fruits spring social relations and social obligations and duties, with which government is necessarily required to deal. In fact, according as monogamous or polygamous marriages are allowed, do we find the principles on which the government of the people, to a greater or less extent, rests. An exceptional colony of polygamists under an exceptional leadership may sometimes exist for a time without appearing to disturb the social condition of the people who surround it; but there cannot be a doubt that, unless restricted by some form of constitution, it is within the legitimate scope of the power of every civil government to determine whether polygamy or monogamy shall be the law of social life under its dominion.
In our opinion, the statute immediately under consideration is within the legislative power of Congress. It is constitutional and valid as prescribing a rule of action for all those residing in the Territories, and in places over which the United States have exclusive control. This being so, the only question which remains is, whether those who make polygamy a part of their religion are excepted from the operation of the statute. If they are, then those who do not make polygamy a part of their religious belief may be found guilty and punished, while those who do, must be acquitted and go free. This would be introducing a new element into criminal law. Laws are made for the government of actions, and while they cannot interfere with mere religious belief and opinions, they may with practices. Suppose one believed that human sacrifices were a necessary part of religious worship, would it be seriously contended that the civil government under which he lived could not interfere to prevent a sacrifice? Or if a wife religiously believed it was her duty to burn herself upon the funeral pile of her dead husband, would it be beyond the power of the civil government to prevent her carrying her belief into practice?
So here, as a law of the organization of society under the exclusive dominion of the United States, it is provided that plural marriages shall not be allowed. Can a man excuse his practices to the contrary because of his religious belief? The permit this would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and in effect to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself. Government could exist only in name under such circumstances...." |
Bring up ancient value have any meaning it they are still follow by people and the social beilif are the same as in the past. There are some ancient Christian beif from the 1st century which arenot follow or belive in anymore.
I wouldnot be surpise that in the next 20 year that Europe
make Polygamy marriage legal as more people are converting to Islamic other there. Culture change, traditson change, laws change, belief change.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
CharlesBHoff
|
|
el paso texas
May 2002
time: 05:32
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Refuted earlier in this thread. The majority of Democrats do not support gay marriage, let alone the Republicans.
As for unenforceable, if it is not a marriage, you don't pay out the benefits. Not hard. |
Than Bad Constitution amendment is worst than 100 bad law. Than bad law can be easier appeal or change. The reason for the 18th amentment was to stop the federal court
from saying than ban on manufactoring, transport and sell of
alchol drinks was constitution as drink alchol was apart of our
culture .
|
|
| |
|
|
|
mindseye
|
 |
A Yankee living in Shanghai
Apr 1999
time: 13:32
|
|
Wow, this thread has grown since I was here last!
quote:
Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
On the whole, what benefits could society expect to receive from recognising gay unions as marriage? |
Uh, allowing people to marry would be an enormous benefit to those currently barred from it. Perhaps you forgot that gay people are part of society, too. 
quote:
If so, how are homosexuals abrogated from exercising the same right as everyone else has? Any man can marry the woman of his choice, provided it is with her consent. |
Hoo-boy, this one is still being trotted around? What about lesbians? Are they allowed to marry the woman of their choice?
How would you feel if the law said you could marry anyone you wanted, as long as it was someone of your own gender. Would you feel like you enjoyed free access to the right of marriage?
quote:
Originally posted by Spiffor
But I think it is absurd to provide Gay couples with the same tax / subsidies benefits as Hetero couples, because gay couples simply don't provide the same services to society than married couples, in terms of making and raising children. |
Again: so you also object to the marriage of infertile couples or of those past child-rearing age? Besides, as others have pointed out, gay couples already have proven they are perfectly capable of bearing and raising children, if that's really what it's all about.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
mindseye
|
|
A Yankee living in Shanghai
Apr 1999
time: 13:32
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Berzerker
A very recent phenomenon created by pressure from special interest groups who seek to re-define the word. That ain't a traditional form of marriage... |
Well, since you brought up "other parts of the globe", both China and Europe have far-from-recent traditions of same-sex marriages.
As I have pointed out time and time again, those who speak of "traditional" forms of marriage usually are in fact referring to marriage as practiced in the industrialized west during the latter half of the twentieth century. Marriage based primarily on mutual love, between two equal and consenting adults, irrespective of race or religion, isn’t "traditional" marriage. For example, as recently as 150 years ago a man could marry a 13-year old. Within living memory a black or Asian man could not marry a white woman. Thank heavens the law broke with these "traditions".
You may not feel there is status associated with marriage, but many of those denied the official sanction feel all too keenly the status their relationships are denied. It is very real, I assure you. Being allowed an equal but "second class" form of marriage is, as Andrew Sullivan put it, nothing more than a finer form of discrimination.
quote:
No, it's saying you can call a pig a red rose all you want but it's still a pig no matter how many politicians you can get to join your chorus. |
And if that chorus is composed of a lot more voices than just those of politicians?
Seems you are saying that unions between gay people are in some fundamental way different from those of straight people (i.e. they are not red roses, but are, in fact, pigs). Beyond legal sanction, how are they so very different?
And who is to decide just what is a pig or a red rose? Who are you to call a gay person's relationship a "pig" while someone else's is a "red rose"? Is a gay person's love for their life-mate somehow less worthy than someone else's? Even if you had used a less offensive choice of terms (a low blow, by the way), the question would be unchanged.
quote:
I'm saying these actions existed before politicians passed laws "inventing" them. |
You mean, just like alternatives to what you call "traditional" marriage existed before current laws "invented" it? 
quote:
Now, marriage is a word that describes a situation...a certain kind of relationship between men and women. That just happens to be how the word is defined. |
As defined by who? You seem to be terribly selective in the "traditions" you draw upon for this definition. Just as the "certain kind of situation" you refer to has not always been, as you pointed out, between two people, neither has it always been between two adults, nor has it always been between people of different genders. In the past it was also "traditionally" restricted to people of the same race. Should we continue that tradition?
quote:
Originally posted by Ned
Polygamy has always been odious among the northern and western nations of Europe |
Sorry, that argument is easily torpedoed by substituting "polygamy" with "inter-racial marriage", "universal suffrage", etc, etc. Traditional thinking, as well as laws, both change, thank heavens.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
mindseye
|
|
A Yankee living in Shanghai
Apr 1999
time: 13:32
|
|
Editorial time: Please allow me to attempt to put this debate into perspective with the musings of a gay person - someone who has a little more at stake in this debate than most here.
You know, there is one aspect to the gay marriage debate that particularly sticks in my craw.
Straight people often spend vast amounts of time, money, and energy in planning, celebrating and commemorating their weddings. Many speak of their wedding day as one of - if not the - most important and happiest day of their life.
Yet, many of the same people are utterly cavalier in denying the same "happiest day of their life" experience to the sizeable percentage of the population who happen to, for no reason of their own choosing, love someone of the same gender.
And for what reason? Appeals to "traditions" that are anything but traditional? Concerns that a gay person's marriage will somehow threaten their own? Or how about all of those who say they don't in principle mind gay unions, but are "uncomfortable" with gay marriages on equal footing with their own?
I am to be denied the right to marry my life-mate because someone doesn’t approve of my choice of partner?  Did they consult me when they made their choice? Personally, I wouldn't dream of interjecting my judgement on someone else's choice of life-mate. But many sure seem to feel welcome to judge mine.
I'm sorry, but many of the arguments against gay marriage seem at core to be downright mean-spirited. Why shouldn’t gay people also enjoy that "happiest day of their life"? All eight of my siblings were able to proudly march down the aisle with their chosen life-mate. But I can't with mine. 
I'm not at all pleased about that, and I'm not willing to be fobbed off with excuses about "discomfort", "threats" to the institution of marriage, or phony appeals to traditions that never were. These same lame arguments were trundled out against inter-racial marriage, but we had the good sense to change those laws because they were fundamentally unfair. People don't choose their skin color any more than they choose their sexual orientation - and neither is a good reason to bar someone from marrying the person they love.
And I'm really displeased with being asked to accept a second-class "civil union", as if my partner were somehow a second-class person, not equal to my siblings' spouses.
And finally, how do you think gay people feel when they are invited to weddings? Did you ever think about that?
Let me tell you what it feels like: it's just like being a black guy invited to celebrate a co-worker's house-warming in a neighborhood that forbids blacks from buying homes. You are torn between your happiness for your friend, and the knowledge that you are being asked to celebrate something that others, for no fair reason, deny you the opportunity of enjoying.
I want a happiest day of my life, too. Not a "same thing with a second-class name" happiest day, either.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Spiffor
|
 |
CPA - Evil Clone brigade
Nov 2001
time: 06:32
|
|
Boris:
I'm having a cautious stance toward the idea of homos raising children, since we don't know yet how much a single-sex family can affect a kid -much like we didn't know well what the impact of being a child in a one-adult-family was before divorce was widespread.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not hostile, but I merely think gay adoption should be experimented before being widely spread (it is the kind of stance I have every time I'm not sure about the consequences of a political action, such as the introduction of GMOs).
But I am sure homo couples can give as much love and understanding to the children they raise as hetero couples.
What I'm pinpointing is that, for now, homo couples having children are the exception, while hetero couples having children are the norm. As such, if tax/subsidies benefits are to be granted on the basis of being a couple, then they should be first granted to hetero couples. Now, as I said in my previous post, I think such benefits shouldn't be attributed to couples on the basis they are couples; but rather attributed on the basis they have children in rearing age or not.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Boris Godunov
|
 |
Portland, OR
Aug 2001
time: 00:32
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Spiffor
What I'm pinpointing is that, for now, homo couples having children are the exception, while hetero couples having children are the norm. As such, if tax/subsidies benefits are to be granted on the basis of being a couple, then they should be first granted to hetero couples. Now, as I said in my previous post, I think such benefits shouldn't be attributed to couples on the basis they are couples; but rather attributed on the basis they have children in rearing age or not. |
What a bunch of unneccessary convulusions. The crux of what you said lies here:
"Now, as I said in my previous post, I think such benefits shouldn't be attributed to couples on the basis they are couples; but rather attributed on the basis they have children in rearing age or not."
So if gay couples have children (by whatever means, as we're not discussing their being allowed to adopt--separate issue), is there any reason to deny them the same benefits for that as a heterosexual couple? No, of course not--because the benefits are primarily there for the sake of the children.
Why establish a heirarchy of "heterosexual before homosexual" in this regard? Why should the genders of the parents make any difference when it concerns benefits geared towards children?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Spiffor
|
|
CPA - Evil Clone brigade
Nov 2001
time: 06:32
|
|
Wow, Mindseye, it was a great editorial 
Boris:
Well, I expressed myself badly then. I forgot to imply that, to me, these benefits only reward the service provided by couples, ie making and raising children. That's why I think providing these benefits on basis of the marital status is absurd IMHO. But if such absurd system was to continue, then it would be even more absurd to give the same benefits to gay couples as to hetero couples, because in today's world, children are the norm in hetero couples, while they are the exception in homo couples.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Boris Godunov
|
|
Portland, OR
Aug 2001
time: 00:32
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Spiffor
That's why I think providing these benefits on basis of the marital status is absurd IMHO. But if such absurd system was to continue, then it would be even more absurd to give the same benefits to gay couples as to hetero couples, because in today's world, children are the norm in hetero couples, while they are the exception in homo couples. |
But this is still arbitrary discrimination, because there are benefits of marriage that have nothing to do with children, and there is a societal benefit to encouraging gays to form stable, monogomous relationships. Even Ben K has acknowledged that in the past.
When talking about legally granting benefits, I want to know what would be wrong with granting gays the rights of marriage. How would it hurt you, your kids, or society to allow gay marriages? Where is there any evidence that the societies that have allowed it have suffered any ill effects?
Any limit to the legal rights of a group of people shouldn't be based on any other considerations. What beyond stolid tradition is the problem?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
CharlesBHoff
|
|
el paso texas
May 2002
time: 05:32
|
|
In europe than man could have two wifes legal as there where Church marriage and common law marriage. Than civil or criminal law state judge have no power to effect church marriage at all. The Church refuse to recoign common law marriage as being legal by cannon law. To have than church wedding you have to be petty wealth, the Serf own the land they farm by ancient Roman law no matter how deep in debt they where than nobleman was unable to legal
throw the serf off the land in fact the noble didnot want to as they worked their land and the noble land. Common Law marriage have nothing to do with judge. Than Man and Woman of poor standing just have to declare thenself marry to each other in public in front of friends. Common Law marriage have all the same right as marraige by Church and cannot be ended by than judge unless the couple or one of then ask for than end to it. The Noble class support Common
Law marriage as it allow the serf be happy marriage an happy serf is than hard working serf. There where case of the noble class useing common law marriage to marry the serf woman he love of than female noble marrying the serf man she love. The noble class rarerly marry for love but for other reason like political alliance, power, wealth and etc.
In fact than illegimate child of royality can become than King or Queen was the reason the royal class kept track of all their love affair.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Spiffor
|
|
CPA - Evil Clone brigade
Nov 2001
time: 06:32
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Boris Godunov
When talking about legally granting benefits, I want to know what would be wrong with granting gays the rights of marriage. How would it hurt you, your kids, or society to allow gay marriages? Where is there any evidence that the societies that have allowed it have suffered any ill effects? |
Save for the reactionaries, it won't bother anyone 
I'm all for gay marriage, because I think gays should not be barred the right to experience this great symbol and display of love. Mindseye wrote it brilliantly.
My quibble was only about tax/subsidies benefits that go to couples, in a system where they depend on marital status. Now, if you say that couples provide other services to society than children, then I'm all for it, that all couples, regardless of sexual orientation, get these benefits. My quibble was about children, because the presence of a child in a family significantly depends on its sexual orientation, although this may change in the future.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Boris Godunov
|
|
Portland, OR
Aug 2001
time: 00:32
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Spiffor
My quibble was only about tax/subsidies benefits that go to couples, in a system where they depend on marital status. Now, if you say that couples provide other services to society than children, then I'm all for it, that all couples, regardless of sexual orientation, get these benefits. My quibble was about children, because the presence of a child in a family significantly depends on its sexual orientation, although this may change in the future. |
Certain benefits go to married couples regardless of their status vis-a-vis children. Among the most important to gays include inheritance rights, hospital visitations, legal authority as next of kin, joint property ownership, etc.
I can understand granting benefits solely on children status--if you have children, whatever kind of couple you are, you get tax breaks/credits/etc. I can understand just granting such benefits to all couples who decide to enter a union as well, since beyond the issue of fostering children, it fosters more stability in society as a whole.
But I still don't comprehend why you're singling out homosexuals in these examples, because even the "worst case" example here is a monogomous, childless gay couple who wants to be legally wed. So the issue becomes what's the drawback to allowing them to do so, and thus conferring on them the above non-children related benefits?
|
|
| |
|
| |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
30-11-2003 02:27
Adultery was less an offense than actual polygamous marriages, ironic, huh?
|
|