 |
|
vvondercat
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Gibsie
It is now only a matter of time before they let people marry animals. |
First off, this is a stupid ****ing argument. Second, why would that matter, anyway? How is it hurting you, or anyone else? Marriage does not require sex. Why don't you take a deep breath, wake up, and try to dig your head out of your ass? Oh, I'm sorry, that would probably require more than the two braincells you've got to rub together. Disgusting.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
JimmyCracksCorn
|
|
Macedonia - Sovereign country north of Greece.
Dec 2002
time: 05:33
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by chegitz guevara
My Italian grandfather aways said gravy. |
Cool. Maybe its an Italian thing?
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Adam Smith
|
 |
Maryland, USA
Jan 1970
time: 00:33
|
|
I think EST is spot on. 
quote:
"The history of our nation has demonstrated that separate is seldom, if ever, equal," the four justices who ruled in favor of gay marriage wrote in the advisory opinion. A bill that would allow for civil unions, but falls short of marriage, makes for "unconstitutional, inferior, and discriminatory status for same-sex couples." |
The Massachusetts court explicitly invoked the Brown vs. Board of Education language in its ruling. But there are some very important ways in which the process of reaching this ruling differs from that of Brown.
First, in the Brown case, there was extensive evidence that the two separate systems were in fact not equal. Was there any evidence in the Massachusetts case that the practical effect of "marriage" differed from "civil union" in any tangible way?
Second, Chief Justice Warren was acutely aware that there were strong views on both sides of the Brown decision, and that any decision rendered would have a broad impact on American society. He was therefore at great pains to fashion a decision which could be reached unanimously. HERE is a link to a recent National Public Radio series on how the Brown decision was reached.) The 4-3 decision in one of the nations most liberal states suggests that the majority justices made no such attempt at consensus or comity in a case they knew would have national implications.
Third, this morning's Washington Post termed the 4-3 decision "resounding". Would they, or anyone who disagreed with the decision, use the same term to describe the one vote margin to not require a recount in Bush vs Gore?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Flubber
|
|
With a view of the Rockies
Aug 2000
time: 22:33
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by MrFun
The "sanctity of marriage" BS is just extremely annoying -- WHAT sanctity?? |
Sanctity
The quality or condition of being considered sacred; inviolability.
Something considered sacred.
While marriage is a battered institution and many treat it in a cavalier fashion my marriage is the most important thing to me, something "sacred". However thats irrelevant to this issue . . .
I see no possible threat to my marriage in people of whatever gender, committing to each other for the long term. In fact, a gay or lesbian couple that stay together for a lifetime, are much more in accordance with my ideas of what marriage should be than say , the Brittany Spears example. BUt no matter what any of these people do, it doesn't affect my marriage one little bit.
A lot of people get hung up on the labels and perhaps homosexual couples need to have their unions called " marriages" in order to feel they have achieved equality on the issue. Personally, I don't care what the label is, as long as it involves the full range of rights and responsibilities, and if it lessened opposition, it might be a smart strategic move for any people lobbying on this issue to accept or even advocate something that was a marriage but had some different label.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MrFun
|
 |
of Iowa
Nov 2000
time: 23:33
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Flubber
Sanctity
The quality or condition of being considered sacred; inviolability.
Something considered sacred.
While marriage is a battered institution and many treat it in a cavalier fashion my marriage is the most important thing to me, something "sacred". However thats irrelevant to this issue . . .
I see no possible threat to my marriage in people of whatever gender, committing to each other for the long term. In fact, a gay or lesbian couple that stay together for a lifetime, are much more in accordance with my ideas of what marriage should be than say , the Brittany Spears example. BUt no matter what any of these people do, it doesn't affect my marriage one little bit.
A lot of people get hung up on the labels and perhaps homosexual couples need to have their unions called " marriages" in order to feel they have achieved equality on the issue. Personally, I don't care what the label is, as long as it involves the full range of rights and responsibilities, and if it lessened opposition, it might be a smart strategic move for any people lobbying on this issue to accept or even advocate something that was a marriage but had some different label. |
Flubber: smartass who ignores the fact that my question was rhetorical, in that I already knew the technical definition 
But for the rest of your post. 
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
gunkulator
|
|
Bravo EST!
The state really has no business sanctioning mine or any other adults' personal relationships. However, when it comes to children, the state has a special interest in their well-being. Those relationships that are likely to result in procreation are therefore sanctioned and encouraged. We call this marriage.
Along with a few perks, there are penalities. To insure finanical stability for the family, the state discourages sexual relationships outside of one's spouse. As any divorced parent can confirm, supporting more than one family is taxing and stressful. Since hetero sex is the only way to produce children, the state has an interest in insuring the stability of potential parents before the sex occurs. Failure to follow the rules is grounds for divorce, with unfavorable finacial consequences for the cheating spouse.
Contrast this with homosexual sex. No possibility of children means the state has no interest if you want to have sex with one or multiple partners. As long as adults are the only involved parties, the gov't should stay out of it.
Now if homosexuals want to adopt children and raise them as a couple, I say let them. And let them gain all the benefits of marriage too, along with all the penalties.
With all due respect to Che and others, families with children are fundamentally different from those without. The state only has an interest in those with children.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:33.
Apolyton Time is 00:33. |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
05-02-2004 05:10
.
|