Marriage Debate

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster :
I will not pray for that.

However, you are certainly free to do so. I welcome any miracles produced in such a fashion, and will take it as a "sign" of God's will.

...jerk-off....

No, I don't. I'm the guy putting the bad mouth on the "sexual revolution". However, you are free to engage in whatever you wish.

...First you say that same-sex marriage is wrong because children cannot be concieved outside of the marriage....

Children are conceived outside of marriages all the time, and that is wrong. It is fornication.

They shouldn't be conceived outside of marriage.

...Now you've said that all things are possible, but you still think same-sex marriage is wrong....

All things are possible with God. That is if God wishes or wills it.

I doubt He will wish or will a homosexual couple to conceive together, but if you pray hard enough, perhaps you can prove me wrong.

...This inconsistency shows that your opposition to same-sex marriage isn't about children at all, it's about your dislike of homosexuality....

I've repeatedly stated that my opposition to same-sex marriage is based on the slippery slope society has been sliding down which is becoming a sheer cliff. Marriage is defined as being between one man and one woman, and I don't want the courts redefining it to same-sex, multiple partners, pets, livestock, or anything else.

...Thank you for showing your ass to the public.

I've been showing my ass to the public in my sig lines for quite some time now. You are my ass. (See sig lines).

 

[ImaginalDisc]

My point is that I am open to argument. Can anyone in the anti- group provide me with a reasoned argument against that does not rely on 'my holy book says so'?

You're forgetting the equally irrelevant appeal to tradition.

 

[Ziggurat]

But that's what I'm asking. What is the incentive?

Tax advantages for a lot of people. Communal property rights. Health care benefits (even employee-sponsored health care plans still essentially get government enforcement through the tax advantages offered). Child custody privileges. Immunity from being forced to testify against a spouse. And probably more I'm not thinking of at the moment.

 

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster :
All things are possible with God...........

Hunster, that's a fairytale. You're quoting a book that features talking shrubbery.....

You're a fairy tale, too.

You're a typing disc, and imaginal at that.

I don't think you exist.

 

[ImaginalDisc]

No, I don't. I'm the guy putting the bad mouth on the "sexual revolution". However, you are free to engage in whatever you wish.

That may explain why you are so irritable.

All things are possible with God. That is if God wishes or wills it.

I doubt He will wish or will a homosexual couple to conceive together, but if you pray hard enough, perhaps you can prove me wrong.

Outstanding use of the reality of science to justify your bigoted fanatcism. Obviously two women are not going to produce a child, and you are taking this as proof of the will of your god. I put it to you that your imaginary friend could simply not have made people gay, but it seems that Harvey, The White Rabbit, did.

I've repeatedly stated that my opposition to same-sex marriage is based on the slippery slope society has been sliding down which is becoming a sheer cliff. Marriage is defined as being between one man and one woman, and I don't want the courts redefining it to same-sex, multiple partners, pets, livestock, or anything else.

Only, there is less violent crime, less rape, and fewer unwed mothers (proportionaly) today thann there were in your mythical golden ages. The 50's were not a peaceful time, devoid of crime. They were much worse than the present.

 

[Hardenbergh]

No, what you've presented is conjecture. A number of the points you specifically presented have been contradicted or you have been requested to further define what actually would happen. Blanket statements such as 'the adoption process will collapse' need further definition.

The marriage amendment will not prevent the ongoing collapse of civilization as perceived by the religious right. The only marriages out there are heterosexual. Yet we still have divorce, abandonment, single parenthood (not related to the death of one partner), sex outside of marriage, abortion, rape and sexual abuse within families.

I am astonished that any group would consider it appropriate to use an amendment to NARROW constitutional rights. Your snide comment regarding giving 'THEM' emphasizes to me that your only reason for denying SSM is related to your judgements about homosexual and lesbian relationships.

With the exception of Ziggurat, who has stated that he/she is playing devil's advocate and presenting as strong a case for one anti-ssm reason, none of the proponents against single-sex marriage have presented a argument that is not based on their religion's stance against such relationships.

Sorry, that's not good enough for me. Especially when you say that you want to change our Constitution to address your particular religious hangup.

As a note, in the other thread on this topic, someone (sorry, whoever you are, I didn't applaud when you presented this argument originally) presented a reasoned argument against multiple-partner marriage. After reading that argument, I changed my mind about allowing such marriages. The argument was based on the affect on a variety of laws if multiple partners were involved. That poster noted that with the exception of printed forms, the whole legal structure surrounding marriage would be able to move forward INTACT if ssm was allowed. That structure would require dramatic changes to allow multiple partner marriage.

My point is that I am open to argument. Can anyone in the anti- group provide me with a reasoned argument against that does not rely on 'my holy book says so'?

It's not so much a narrowing of constitutional rights as a reaffirmation of what most of us already knew. We didn't know that we would be required to spell it out in plain language almost 230 years later.

 

[ImaginalDisc]

It's not so much a narrowing of constitutional rights as a reaffirmation of what most of us already knew. We didn't know that we would be required to spell it out in plain language almost 230 years later.

Nevermind bluess, Hardenbergh's made the irrelevant appeal to tradition for you.

230 year ago we had no Social Security, interacial marriages were prohibited, and the children of mixed race couples were condemend to slavery. 230 years ago, women had no rights, and only wealthy, landed, white men could vote. Things weren't so great 230 years ago. It's time for some progression.

 

[Upchurch]

You missed my point. My point is that discrimination is legal, provided the state has an interest in the differences involved. In the case of blind drivers, it's safety. That interest need not be safety for other forms of discrimination.

Discrimination is legal with just cause. The reasonable safety of other drivers and pedistrians is just cause.

What is the just cause for discriminating against same sex couples?

States have an interest in ensuring that there are a continual supply of new and capable citizens - I've termed this procreation, meaning people must have and raise children in order for society to survive. Therefore the state has an interest in procreation. Do you dispute any part of that?

No, but that wasn't my question.

Children raised within the context of marriage perform much better than those who are not. More productive citizens provides a benefit to society. Therefore the state has an interest in promoting marriage for the purposes of supporting procreation. Do you dispute any of that?

No, but that wasn't my question.

You keep asking for evidence, but you haven't disputed any of those points yet.

I'm not disputing these points, mostly because they are irrelevent to the question I asked.

How does the state support and promote procreation through marriage?

Your sex is not considered private information. Neither, really, is any information that appears on your birth certificate.

I never said your sex was considered private information. You and your spouse's ability to conceive generally is considered private information.

 

[bluess]

It's not so much a narrowing of constitutional rights as a reaffirmation of what most of us already knew. We didn't know that we would be required to spell it out in plain language almost 230 years later.

Bull hockey.

It is exactly that. Narrowing constitutional rights. Have some balls/ovaries and stand up for what you want to do.

And I repeat my prior observation that anti-ssm advocates get hysterical about maintaining state's rights for those states who pass amendments to their constitutions against - but want to override the state's rights for those states who acknowledge ssm in any way.

With the exception of the amendment to prohibit alcoholic consumption, it is my understanding that the amendments to date specifically identify rights which have been historically denied. You know, like a woman's right to vote. Because when the constitution was drafted, who would think that someone wearing skirts could possibly be involved in such a male-oriented matter.

Again, other than a religious prohibition against homosexual or lesbian relationships, can you provide a reasoned approach that would validate your desire to change one of our country's founding documents?

Again, other than a religious prohibition against homosexual or lesbian relationships, can you provide a reasoned approach that would validate denying state acknowledgement of a two-person partnership with all its benefits and liabilities based solely on the fact that the two people are of the same gender?

 

[Upchurch]

Tax advantages for a lot of people.

Child tax advantages are available to non-married people.

Non-child tax advantages have no bearing on supporting procreation.

Communal property rights.

Which has nothing to do with procreation. The child still has inheretence rights over a parent's or legal guardian's property, in lue of a will that says otherwise.

Health care benefits (even employee-sponsored health care plans still essentially get government enforcement through the tax advantages offered).

Which has nothing to do with supporting procreation since health care benfits are usually extended to children whether or not the guardian is married.

Child custody privileges.

Marriage does not insure custody privileges. Being a parent or legal guardian grants child custody privilages.

Immunity from being forced to testify against a spouse.

Has nothing to do with supporting procreation.


So, I'll ask again: What incentives does the government provide for married couples that supports and promotes procreation?

 

[thaiboxerken]

Children are conceived outside of marriages all the time, and that is wrong. It is fornication.

I never said that they weren't, I disagree that it's wrong though. On what basis do you make your opinion from?

They shouldn't be conceived outside of marriage.

Why not?

All things are possible with God. That is if God wishes or wills it.

Yes, and your claimed "reason" to be against same-sex marriage comes down to procreation. According to your belief system, if your god wants it, a same-sex couple can concieve a child from within the marriage. Thus, you've defeated your own position that a same-sex marriage is wrong because they can't have children within the marriage.

I've repeatedly stated that my opposition to same-sex marriage is based on the slippery slope society has been sliding down which is becoming a sheer cliff. Marriage is defined as being between one man and one woman, and I don't want the courts redefining it to same-sex, multiple partners, pets, livestock, or anything else.

Slippery slope is a fallacy of logic used to try and intimidate people. This issue is about same-sex marriage, not all of the other things you've mentioned. Let's not equivocate homosexuality to beastiality.

 

[Hardenbergh]

This reiterates ImaginalDisc's comment that the U.S. Constitution needs to change with the times:

Highest Court in New York Confronts Gay Marriage
By ANEMONA HARTOCOLLIS
Published: June 1, 2006

ALBANY, May 31 — As the issue of gay marriage finally reached New York State's highest court on Wednesday, the six judges who heard the passionate arguments from both sides put forth a fundamental question: Has marriage been defined by history, culture and tradition since the dawn of Western civilization, or is it an evolving social institution that should change with the times?

Kathy Burke, left, and Tonja Alvis, a couple from the Schenectady, N.Y., area who have pushed for same-sex marriage, waited outside court to hear Wednesday's case.

During the two and a half hours of oral argument, the judges on the Court of Appeals grappled with essential questions of social values, asking tough questions without tipping their hands as to their ultimate decision.

They wanted to know whether there were studies showing that children raised by mothers and fathers turned out better than those raised by same-sex couples, and they wanted to know whether opening the door to gay marriage would also open the door to bigamy or polygamy.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/01/nyregion/01marriage.html?_r=2&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

 

[ImaginalDisc]

This reiterates ImaginalDisc's comment that the U.S. Constitution needs to change with the times:



http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/01/nyregion/01marriage.html?_r=2&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

How dare you put words in my mouth, you weasely bigot. We have spent the last two centuries expanding the rights and privilages avilable to the people of the United States. Banning gay marriage is not progressive.

 

[Ziggurat]

So, I'll ask again: What incentives does the government provide for married couples that supports and promotes procreation?

And I'll say again: the incentives need not have ANY direct connection to procreation. It is an incentive to get married, and that is enough. There is no requirement anywhere that the incentives need have any more connection than that.

 

[Ziggurat]

I never said your sex was considered private information. You and your spouse's ability to conceive generally is considered private information.

When your sex determines that a couple is unable to conceive within the context of marriage, that inability is rather obviously NOT private information. An obvious an irrefutable inference made from public information cannot be private information.

 

[Hardenbergh]

How dare you put words in my mouth, you weasely bigot. We have spent the last two centuries expanding the rights and privilages avilable to the people of the United States. Banning gay marriage is not progressive.

I think you misunderstood. The article poses the question, "Has marriage been defined by history, culture and tradition since the dawn of Western civilization, or is it an evolving social institution that should change with the times?" It wasn't my attention to twist your words around. You said, "It's time for some progression" and that's why I picked up on that same question in the article. Sorry.

 

[bluess]

I think you misunderstood. The article poses the question, "Has marriage been defined by history, culture and tradition since the dawn of Western civilization, or is it an evolving social institution that should change with the times?" It wasn't my attention to twist your words around.

Looks like you just shot yourself down.

Marriage has NOT been defined by history, culture and tradition since the dawn of Western civilization. It is an evolving social institution. Therefore, attempts to halt that evolution by changing one of our founding documents are flat-out WRONG.

We are nation founded on ideals of equality. The document written by a bunch of dead, white, European males has allowed the increase of freedoms beyond their cultural background. How dare you try to step on that far-reaching vision based on your religion's ban on certain relationships?

However, if you would like to go back to a more traditional version of marriage, where a husband beating his wife was considered appropriate, or where a woman could not sign a contract without the husband's consent, please enact these relationships within YOUR marriage.

 

[bluess]

Hardenbergh - Can you address either of the questions I raise in post #709 without recourse to someone else's article?

 

[Huntster]

.....I put it to you that your imaginary friend could simply not have made people gay, but it seems that Harvey, The White Rabbit, did...

No, Harvey didn't do it, and neither did God.

We all have our choices. We choose.

You can run around like a child all you wish crying "God made me do it." That doesn't mean I have to accept it.

I've repeatedly stated that my opposition to same-sex marriage is based on the slippery slope society has been sliding down which is becoming a sheer cliff. Marriage is defined as being between one man and one woman, and I don't want the courts redefining it to same-sex, multiple partners, pets, livestock, or anything else.

Only, there is less violent crime, less rape, and fewer unwed mothers (proportionaly) today thann there were in your mythical golden ages.

Evidence?

The 50's were not a peaceful time, devoid of crime. They were much worse than the present.

That's your opinion, child.

 

[Hardenbergh]

Hardenbergh - Can you address either of the questions I raise in post #709 without recourse to someone else's article?

This whole thread is full of reasons but no one wants to listen to any of them. My reasoning is lacking so you're asking the wrong person. I'm not very good at debating. That's why I'm always quoting someone else that seems to fall in line with what I believe to be true.