Marriage Debate

[thaiboxerken]

Who the ◊◊◊◊ do you think you're kidding?

It's particularly funny coming from him, since he has invoked his god and bible a few times in this thread.

 

[Earthborn]

If some society out there was marrying people of the same sex, I would find that interesting, but I haven't seen it.

The problem here is of course that no historical culture shares with us the same concepts of gender, of marriage or sexual preference. So whatever example of "same sex marriage" one could come up with, others could say "well, that's not really the same thing, is it?" and they would be right too. Before searching for historical same sex marriages, we need to define what we would accept as a same sex marriage.

Do we accept marriages as "same sex marriages" between people of the same sex, but where one of them is expected to have an opposite genderrole?
Do "same sex marriages" necessarily involve homosexual relationships?
In cultures where "marriage" is defined as the ownership of women, do we accept as "same sex marriage" having male slaves for sexual purposes acquired through much the same procedure as women?

 

[Huntster]

....Correct. Further, there is no law banning homosexual acts in the privacy of one's home.....

Actually, there are laws that do such a thing. There are also laws that ban cunninlingus and any M-F sex outside of the missionary position.

Where?

How do these laws circumvent Lawrence v. Texas?

 

[Huntster]

The biggest issue in your argument is that denying gay marriage has no particular reasoning behind it except that gay couples should not be able to enjoy the same perks as straight couples (tax filings, jointly owned property, etc.)....

That is not my position at all. You do not have to be married to enjoy the legal protections of jointly owned property, and I think tax law should be revamped completely, anyway, to a flat tax, thereby eliminating any and all tax breaks (related to marriage or not).

That is the biggest issue in this controversy. There are no rational reasons to say that same-sex marriage should be illegal.

That is your opinion.

You have argued that you don't care if one state doesn't recognize your marriage to your wife. Yet, you say that the Federal government recognizing marriages for tax purpose is your standard.

No, I didn't. I implied that the Federal government recognizing marriages for tax purpose is thestandard, but I also think that is inappropriate, unfair, and is just another misuse and abuse of tax law.

What happens if you lose your marriage status with them? What happens if your wife gets sick, and since you're not considered married, your insurance doesn't cover her?

Health insurance. A private entity. And a big social problem. I don't know what to tell you about those folks.

Can't live with them, can't live without them.

I suppose you can sic the feds on them, too. As much as I hate empowering the feds, I'd support that.

Or the hospital doesn't allow you to see her even?

More bad policy. Blame the lawyers, not me or government.

Finally, if she dies, then her property (without a will) goes through probate and you have no rights to it?

I'm going through that right now with parental inheritance that is all screwed up.

Thank the lawyers.

Banning same sex marriage for dogmatic reasons of tradition is silly. If that were the case, wives would still be property, slaves would still be owned and utilized, and we would still be colonies. It's called progression.

The elimination of human bondage and women's rights were progression.

Colonial revolt was political evolution.

I believe this to be moral digression.

 

[Upchurch]

I believe this to be moral digression.

Morally wrong based on what?

 

[wastepanel]

So, as a society based upon everybody having the same rights, can you say that one group should recieve favor over another? It doesn't make any sense in the US today.

 

[Pauliesonne]

Morally wrong based on what?

I believe he's talking about the orignal Charlie Manson that exists ONLY in the bible.

 

[Upchurch]

I believe he's talking about the orignal Charlie Manson that exists ONLY in the bible.

No, I really want to know. What is the basis for judging that "this is moral digression"?

 

[wastepanel]

That is not my position at all. You do not have to be married to enjoy the legal protections of jointly owned property, and I think tax law should be revamped completely, anyway, to a flat tax, thereby eliminating any and all tax breaks (related to marriage or not).



That is your opinion.



No, I didn't. I implied that the Federal government recognizing marriages for tax purpose is thestandard, but I also think that is inappropriate, unfair, and is just another misuse and abuse of tax law.



Health insurance. A private entity. And a big social problem. I don't know what to tell you about those folks.

Can't live with them, can't live without them.

I suppose you can sic the feds on them, too. As much as I hate empowering the feds, I'd support that.



More bad policy. Blame the lawyers, not me or government.



I'm going through that right now with parental inheritance that is all screwed up.

Thank the lawyers.



The elimination of human bondage and women's rights were progression.

Colonial revolt was political evolution.

I believe this to be moral digression.

SO WHAT RATIONAL REASONS ARE THERE? There's alot of writing here (and I could nitpick on it all), but I'm going to focus on what rational reasons are there to outlaw same sex marriage?

 

[Snide]

There appears to be some confusion. With that post, I answered your question of post #922

Nope. Simply, if you tell someone "here's your chance" and ask them a question, you should at least be courteous enough to answer one that person asked you first, regardless of whether the subject matter is different.

Your post #916:



The point is that the arguments being made by pro-SSM advocates to legitimize gay marriage can also be made by those who argue for the legalization of marijuana. Yet, the legalization of marijuana is in complete chaos:

And how is that exactly a point in this discussion? In other words, so what? There are many here, myself included, who are favor of both recognizing SSM and the decrimnilization of marijuana. Again, so what?

1) It is still a federal felony to merely possess the substance (while homosexual activity within the privacy of one's own home is legally protected)

2) State laws are a myriad of various restrictions, allowances, etc.

3) The federal government actively lobbies state ballot initiatives opposing all legalization efforts

4) There is no sign that the U.S. Supreme Court seeks any effort to universalize the marijuana issue (even with regard to medical use) like it did with abortion or like pro-SSM advocates are demanding with regard to SSM.

Laws are not universally "fair" and "even". They reflect the views of the voting public or their elected representatives. Period.

SSM advocates are free to lobby government to allow the re-definition of marriage, but if they fail, I hope they take the political loss in stride like marijuana legalization advocates, and refrain from "acting up", both for their sake as well as the good of society.

OK...so your point of drawing comparisons between marijuana and SSM is nothing in the way of advancing your argument against SSM. You just wanted to make a commentary. (?)

edited typo

 

[thaiboxerken]

Morally wrong based on what?

He's already stated this, it's based on his bible.

 

[Upchurch]

He's already stated this, it's based on his bible.

Can you point me to the post?

 

[thaiboxerken]

Can you point me to the post?

It's implied in several posts, he doesn't state it explicity though.

You expect people to enter a special and holy vow like marriage based on your outlook?

118

Here, he quotes his bible as part of his argument against same-sex marriage:

That's because it cannot and should not be, even though that is the goal among most married couples:

The LORD God then built up into a woman the rib that he had taken from the man. When he brought her to the man, the man said: "This one, at last, is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; This one shall be called 'woman,' for out of 'her man' this one has been taken." That is why a man leaves his father and mother and clings to his wife, and the two of them become one body.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=1670096#post1670096

Because that's the will of God, not man.

Here, he argues that marriage is about procreation and if heterocouples have kids or not is the will of of his god.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=1670124#post1670124

I'm under the impression that what is being discussed in this thread is the commitment of marriage under the laws of God.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=1670161#post1670161

 

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster :
I believe this to be moral digression.

Morally wrong based on what?

Historically successful and traditional moral values.

 

[Huntster]

So, as a society based upon everybody having the same rights, can you say that one group should recieve favor over another?

Not necessarily, but it happens to many various groups and interests.

It doesn't make any sense in the US today.

It makes very good sense in a federal republic and representive democracy.

 

[Huntster]

SO WHAT RATIONAL REASONS ARE THERE? There's alot of writing here (and I could nitpick on it all), but I'm going to focus on what rational reasons are there to outlaw same sex marriage?

Because, like the example of marijuana use, it violates the moral values of the majority.

 

[Upchurch]

Historically successful and traditional moral values.

Do you consider all historically successful and traditional moral values to be morally sound based entirely on their historical success and ..."traditional-ness"?



eta: I'm thinking of another historically successful and traditional moral value: slavery. Do you consider slavery a morally sound value?

 

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster :
There appears to be some confusion. With that post, I answered your question of post #922

Nope. Simply, if you tell someone "here's your chance" and ask them a question, you should at least be courteous enough to answer one that person asked you first, regardless of whether the subject matter is different.

"Courteous"? Are you trying to be "snide" with me?

Perhaps I should exhibit some Pauliesonne-style "courteousy" for you.

I don't have to answer your questions at all. I damned sure don't have to answer them in the order you demand, especially when you mix the questions together.

Your post #916:

The point is that the arguments being made by pro-SSM advocates to legitimize gay marriage can also be made by those who argue for the legalization of marijuana. Yet, the legalization of marijuana is in complete chaos:

And how is that exactly a point in this discussion? In other words, so what?

They are both issues of morality, and the majority don't approve, whether you or I like it or not.

Period.

There are many here, myself included, who are favor of both recognizing SSM and the decrimnilization of marijuana. Again, so what?

You might be successful with one or both, and you might be unsuccessful with one or both.

Give it your best shot.

1) It is still a federal felony to merely possess the substance (while homosexual activity within the privacy of one's own home is legally protected)

2) State laws are a myriad of various restrictions, allowances, etc.

3) The federal government actively lobbies state ballot initiatives opposing all legalization efforts

4) There is no sign that the U.S. Supreme Court seeks any effort to universalize the marijuana issue (even with regard to medical use) like it did with abortion or like pro-SSM advocates are demanding with regard to SSM.

Laws are not universally "fair" and "even". They reflect the views of the voting public or their elected representatives. Period.

SSM advocates are free to lobby government to allow the re-definition of marriage, but if they fail, I hope they take the political loss in stride like marijuana legalization advocates, and refrain from "acting up", both for their sake as well as the good of society.

OK...so your point of drawing comparisons between marijuana and SSM is nothing in the way of advancing your argument against SSM. You just wanted to make a commentary. (?)

It is both a commentary and a recognition of reality. My position on both SSM and marijuana use is consistent. I vote with the majority, because I disapprove of legalization of marijuana and same-sex marriage(whether I'm gay or not, or if I'm a marijuana user or not).

 

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Upchurch :
Morally wrong based on what?

He's already stated this, it's based on his bible.

Originally Posted by Upchurch :
Can you point me to the post?

It's implied in several posts, he doesn't state it explicity though.

More signature fodder, Kenny?

 

[Pauliesonne]

Perhaps I should exhibit some Pauliesonne-style "courteousy" for you.

You really think I should show a bigot like you some " courteousy ".

After some of the things I've read from you, I can safely say there's more chance of Charlie manson getting released than me showing you some " courteousy ".