 |
| |
|
|
molly bloom
|
 |
Lundenwic
Oct 2001
time: 15:17
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Wiglaf
It would stem from gay marriage.
You'd have to let damn near everyone do whatever they want under the umbrella of marriage, now that procreation and tradition are so "irrelevant" to you.
Tell me why the government should want that to happen to so fundamental an institution... |
Ah, procreation and tradition, those bedrocks of marriage.
Let's bring back the tradition of siblings getting married- hey, if it worked for the Ptolemies of Egypt, I'm all in favour!
Let's bring back that good old Biblically sanctioned tradition of a brother marrying his sibling's widow- to ensure the family name is carried on.
Let's bring back marriage within N degrees of consanguinity- o.k., there'll be a few hillbilly Habsburg slip-ups, but it should keep family property within the nuclear family, right? And those are some of the important things about traditional marriage- property rights and wealth.
Let's bring back child marriage- if it's fine by Jerry Lee Lewis, it's fine by me.
Let's bring back concubinage, harems, hell, let's resurrect those traditional laws FORBIDDING miscegenation, let's all get with the programme for the majority of societies on earth, which favour polygamous marriages.
And let's not forget those rarer but still significant (at least for tradition's sake) polyandrous societies.
And why don't some of us get married to local or far flung bodies of water? Venice seemed to do quite well by it.
And what about those lovely little ladies, nuns- they get to marry their god, but how the alimony is paid if it all goes pear-shaped, well, who knows. It's in the lap of the god(s).
And how about those fine Native American berdache and shaman traditions- of same sex marriage? I think they're definitely due for a revival.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Patroklos
|
 |
Back home in good ole Norfolk VA
Dec 2001
time: 05:17
|
|
quote:
It should be up to the people and the government... not religions |
And that is exactly what is happening. The people have decided that they don't want gays married. Just because someones religious based morality is the same as their political morality does not mean they are both rooted in the same thing, or that one flows from the other.
And why exactly is someone a bigot or a homophob if they oppose any part of a gay agenda? Bigot I can see in instances, but homophob is an actually fear, and almost never applies to anyone here. Alas, you call everyone that regardless, and then wonder why you can't convince people to see things your way.
The same narrow and closed mindedness you accuse your opponets of having is manifest much more openly by the gay community on this issue. If you are unwilling to budge one inch from your position (accepting civil unions), why should your opponents? Because you think your right? News for you, so do they.
And many of the gay posters here constantly harp we need this for economic, medical, and ease of living reasons. It has been given you, the only differance between the civil union offered and marraiges is the title. You won, and you refused your trophy. All that legal/state jargon Ming spouted (which makes perfect sence) is irrelevent because it was given and then refused. Which makes it clear that what you really want is the concept, you want to own the idea. And also clear from this thread in particular you want to hold in the face of you detractors and say I told you so.
If your argument is you want marraige for economic etc. reasons then you won.
If you arguement is you want it so you can live together in love and happiness then why the hell do you need a legal paper with printed words and a seal? Is that what love is?
The gay quest for the word marriage is the exact same arguement as the other side. You were right, won, but couldn't stop and now both sides are on the same moral level all around.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MrFun
|
 |
of Iowa
Nov 2000
time: 23:17
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Patroklos
And that is exactly what is happening. The people have decided that they don't want gays married. Just because someones religious based morality is the same as their political morality does not mean they are both rooted in the same thing, or that one flows from the other.
And why exactly is someone a bigot or a homophob if they oppose any part of a gay agenda? Bigot I can see in instances, but homophob is an actually fear, and almost never applies to anyone here. Alas, you call everyone that regardless, and then wonder why you can't convince people to see things your way.
The same narrow and closed mindedness you accuse your opponets of having is manifest much more openly by the gay community on this issue. If you are unwilling to budge one inch from your position (accepting civil unions), why should your opponents? Because you think your right? News for you, so do they.
And many of the gay posters here constantly harp we need this for economic, medical, and ease of living reasons. It has been given you, the only differance between the civil union offered and marraiges is the title. You won, and you refused your trophy. All that legal/state jargon Ming spouted (which makes perfect sence) is irrelevent because it was given and then refused. Which makes it clear that what you really want is the concept, you want to own the idea. And also clear from this thread in particular you want to hold in the face of you detractors and say I told you so.
If your argument is you want marraige for economic etc. reasons then you won.
If you arguement is you want it so you can live together in love and happiness then why the hell do you need a legal paper with printed words and a seal? Is that what love is?
The gay quest for the word marriage is the exact same arguement as the other side. You were right, won, but couldn't stop and now both sides are on the same moral level all around. |
To designate gays second-class status with the title civil union is discriminatory. United States has gone down the road of separate but equal before, and the Supreme Court ruled that separate but equal is unconstitutional.
And let's talk about "the people deciding." Too often, homophobic fundies and others who agree with them, would like for civil rights and liberties to be decided by a popular vote. It would be a very dangerous situation to throw civil rights and liberties to the whims of the majority. The federal government had to force states to desegregate in the 1960s, even if the majority might not have been willing to support desegregation. Then in the years after, an increasing number of Americans saw that segregation was wrong -- only after the federal government stepped in.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ming
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Patroklos
And that is exactly what is happening. The people have decided that they don't want gays married.
|
True enough... and in future elections, maybe they will win. It should be up to the states, and the fed has no right trying to push a constitutional amendment that in itself is unconstitutional. I have no problems with states voting against it. I don't agree, but that's the way the system works. However, if it does win at the state level, I don't want the fed to jump in and try to change things. On the other hand, I wouldn't mind seeing the case for gay marriages go to the SC... because I think the current laws are unconstitional and are discrimintory.
quote:
And why exactly is someone a bigot or a homophob if they oppose any part of a gay agenda? Bigot I can see in instances, but homophob is an actually fear, and almost never applies to anyone here. Alas, you call everyone that regardless, and then wonder why you can't convince people to see things your way.
|
People who relate homosexuality to having sex with animals are bigots, pure and simple. I have no problem with people who claim it's against their religion, and that they are opposed to it... as long as they just admit that is the reason why, and don't try to justify if with totally illogical arguments 
quote:
And many of the gay posters here constantly harp we need this for economic, medical, and ease of living reasons. It has been given you, the only differance between the civil union offered and marraiges is the title. You won, and you refused your trophy.
|
Yeah, they won the right to be treated as second class people... oh joy, I guess they should jump for joy. It's not the same... PERIOD.
quote:
All that legal/state jargon Ming spouted (which makes perfect sence) is irrelevent because it was given and then refused.
|
Laws change... that's a fact. People for it should work harder so that they can win in the future.
quote:
Which makes it clear that what you really want is the concept, you want to own the idea. And also clear from this thread in particular you want to hold in the face of you detractors and say I told you so.
|
No... they want the same RIGHT to be married as other couples. The term married is important to all COUPLES, why should gays be denied the same right.
quote:
If your argument is you want marraige for economic etc. reasons then you won.
|
Again... the right to be considered second class... they want to get married, just like other couples who are in love.
quote:
If you arguement is you want it so you can live together in love and happiness then why the hell do you need a legal paper with printed words and a seal? Is that what love is?
|
Maybe because other couples have the right to be married. Love is a commitment, and that's what marriage is all about. If it isn't such a big deal for you, why should it matter if they get it.
quote:
The gay quest for the word marriage is the exact same arguement as the other side. You were right, won, but couldn't stop and now both sides are on the same moral level all around. |
And why should they stop... it's not the same as you try to point out. On one side is the quest for fairness... and the other side, discrimination... not the same at all.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:17.
Apolyton Time is 00:17. |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
18-12-2004 09:01
ACK!
|