flyinghonu 0 #51 December 17, 2003 Quote It's the people's business and not the government's. Probably the most eloquently put statement in the thread - short and to the point (yet true) "Excuse me while I kiss the sky..." - Jimi Hendrix Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pds 0 #52 December 17, 2003 ever notice that bad politicians are rarely the subject of assasination plots? wierd.namaste, motherfucker. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #53 December 17, 2003 QuoteQuote It's the people's business and not the government's. Probably the most eloquently put statement in the thread - short and to the point (yet true) If it's the peoples' business, and not the government, then why the clamor? Could it be because it IS a legal proceeding, and marriage is performed via LICENSE issued by the government? I would disagree that this is not a governmental interest. If government is not involved, we could forget the whole process of seeking governmental approval, and this would not be an issue. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
flyinghonu 0 #54 December 17, 2003 QuoteQuoteQuote It's the people's business and not the government's. Probably the most eloquently put statement in the thread - short and to the point (yet true) If it's the peoples' business, and not the government, then why the clamor? Could it be because it IS a legal proceeding, and marriage is performed via LICENSE issued by the government? I would disagree that this is not a governmental interest. If government is not involved, we could forget the whole process of seeking governmental approval, and this would not be an issue. I think what we (or at least I) was trying to get at is that it should be the people's business and not the the governments. Obviously the government has a say for the points that you validly (is that a word "Excuse me while I kiss the sky..." - Jimi Hendrix Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #55 December 17, 2003 On your point we are in agreement! My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
flyinghonu 0 #56 December 17, 2003 QuoteQuoteOn your point we are in agreement! Cool. "Excuse me while I kiss the sky..." - Jimi Hendrix Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites goose491 0 #57 December 17, 2003 QuoteSo let's hypothesize that the states were to create a new institution called "marriage2" which is initiated by something called a "wedding2" Let's also imagine that the states defined it thusly: "Marriage2 is a union between two men or between two women which has exactly the same benefits and obligations as marriage." Would that be acceptable to you? I think we'd see a more original name than that but If you must be sarcastic about it, I'll stick with a civil answer: Acceptable? Yes. (Technically, it would be 'created' by the homosexual comunity and 'recognized' by the states.) QuoteLet's modify it slightly for a second question: What if the definition of marriage2 allowed heterosexual couples to participate in marriage2 as well? Would that change your answer? Yes. Because your "marriage2" would by definition be a gay marriage. A same sex partnership. Listen. A gay couple is not the same as a straight couple. Nobody can flame me for that statement. It is 100% true. Should they be entitle to the same benefits? Well, I've already said that there shouldn't be any special benefits for married couples but so long as there are, YES! Homosexuality has been becoming more and more acceptable over the years. Would anyone argue that fact? So even if it were 100% acceptable to all today, it still wouldn't mean it's the same as heterosexality. Mine was only a suggestion as I beleive a marriage is a union between man and woman. That it began as a religious ceremony, and was all but f*cked up completely when politics became involved in the slightest. My Karma ran over my Dogma!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites quade 4 #58 December 17, 2003 As far as the government should be concerned it's a legal contract between two people. That's all. Nothing whatsoever should even imply the sex of the people involved.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites goose491 0 #59 December 17, 2003 QuoteQuoteGays are fighting to change that statement... not disprove it. Untrue. I love what is happening in the US. Land of the Free, well only if you comply with the religious beliefs of its leader. Hey Justin! What's up? Bush didn't create the wedding ceremony... it's a little older than he is. The marriage began as a religious ceremony... and it was indeed created as a union between man and woman. Bush is standing fast to this. I for one, would push for separation of church and state. Take away the pollitical 'benefits' of being married in the first place. My Karma ran over my Dogma!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rehmwa 2 #60 December 17, 2003 QuoteTake away the pollitical 'benefits' of being married in the first place. Only if you take away the political/tax benefits of being single too. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites lawrocket 3 #61 December 17, 2003 I agree with you totally on that point. Too bad that, thanks to the FDR era, freedom to contract ain't so free. Lochner Yep! Amazing how the law of unintended consequences, i.e., progressive politics, ultimately affects progressive politics negatively. The government can ban any contract it wants to ban, on the basis of "public morals." In fact, it may be useful to look at this like a minimum wage law. If I offer to work for $4.00 per hour as a janitor, and prospective employer accepts, such a contract IS one between consenting adults, and the government should have no business meddling in such a private affair, right? Wrong. The employer will be punished for it (and likely reviled among the left). Well, the courts, thanks to the FDR era, do NOT see contracts as a fundamental freedom. Thus, a contract for gay marriage will not be allowable under freedom of contract for the same reason that minimum wage laws disallow contracts for under that wage. Unless we are willing to end minimum wage laws, and prostitution laws, and other such laws limiting power to enter into contract, your belief system, though one which I thoroughly agree with, is unworkable with regard to gay marriage. Of course, your and my viewpoints match with Janice Rogers Brown, the African American Cal. Supreme Court Justice so hated and reviled among the left for her ideas. Do a Google search on "brown and Lochner" and find how hated she is for her suggestions about governmental power over private property and contract power. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites narcimund 0 #62 December 17, 2003 QuoteQuoteLet's modify it slightly for a second question: What if the definition of marriage2 allowed heterosexual couples to participate in marriage2 as well? Would that change your answer? Yes. Because your "marriage2" would by definition be a gay marriage. A same sex partnership. I believe you misunderstood question #2. I was asking if you'd approve just as strongly of marriage2 if INSTEAD of being defined as solely for homosexuals if it allowed heterosexual marriage2 as well. And then the unasked question #3 was going to be, "If the definition allowed both homosexual and heterosexual marraige2s, and if it so happened that heterosexuals happened to choose marriage2s instead of marriages, then eventually marriage would die out. Would you STILL approve?" If not, I think your beliefs are more complicated than you've admitted. First Class Citizen Twice Over Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites goose491 0 #63 December 17, 2003 QuoteQuoteTake away the pollitical 'benefits' of being married in the first place. Only if you take away the political/tax benefits of being single too. Now, which ones would you be refering to? 'cause people are born single. I present that they obtain certain benefits when the get married... and that that shouldn't be. What would you take away from the singles? My Karma ran over my Dogma!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites PhillyKev 0 #64 December 17, 2003 But in your minimum wage example, isn't the reason for the illegality an effort to protect one of the parties of the contract? Who is being protected by making a marriage contract between homosexuals illegal? As far as I can tell, it is only to protect third parties from seeing someone acting in a way inconsistent with their own beliefs. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Treejumps 0 #65 December 17, 2003 I know I shouldn't bother...but, I think that Bush's morals and values are representative of an overwhelming majority of Americans, myself included. The purpose and basis of marriage, as I understand it, has always been to foster and support the creation and rearing of children. Nature has dictated that this only occurs between a man and woman, so marriage is only for a man and woman. Tha being said, I could care less how people live if it doesn't involve me, and doesn't harm others, or farm animals. However, it is the height of hubris to suggest that several million years of evolution is wrong. Live how you want to live, but don't demand that the other 95% of the population sanction your choices, or change the very fabric of society to fit your life style. BTW, I just got engaged, so I feel like I've got something in this game. Cya. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rehmwa 2 #66 December 17, 2003 QuoteQuoteQuoteTake away the pollitical 'benefits' of being married in the first place. Only if you take away the political/tax benefits of being single too. etc What would you take away from the singles? I'll rephrase to 'Only if you take away the political/tax DISadvantages of being married too" For example, the tax inequality. Or did we fix that with this admin? Is that better? ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites goose491 0 #67 December 17, 2003 Quote I believe you misunderstood question #2. No, I understood... it was loaded. QuoteI was asking if you'd approve just as strongly of marriage2 if INSTEAD of being defined as solely for homosexuals if it allowed heterosexual marriage2 as well. And I answered No. QuoteAnd then the unasked question #3 was going to be, "If the definition allowed both homosexual and heterosexual marraige2s, and if it so happened that heterosexuals happened to choose marriage2s instead of marriages, then eventually marriage would die out. Would you STILL approve?" Didn't have to be psychic to see that one coming. My suggestion was a new type of union. One for homosexual couples. So you would have one for gays, and one for straights. I think the couple is different, the lifstyle is different, the ceremony should be too. Furthermore, it would be a milestone in the history of Gay rights! QuoteIf not, I think your beliefs are more complicated than you've admitted. On gays? Somewhat, that's why I invited you to PMs. In terms of this particular topic however, my beleifs are simple: -That a marriage is between a man and a woman. -That a man and a man cannot join into the same institution. -That a woman and a woman cannot enter into the same institution BUT, -Because they should have every same right, homosexual couples should have a cermony of their own to take their relationships to the next level too. My Karma ran over my Dogma!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 3,090 #68 December 17, 2003 > The purpose and basis of marriage, as I understand it, has always > been to foster and support the creation and rearing of children. > Nature has dictated that this only occurs between a man and > woman, so marriage is only for a man and woman. I have two friends that couldn't get pregnant the normal way. Should they be barred from marriage? > However, it is the height of hubris to suggest that several million > years of evolution is wrong. And it is somewhat sexist to suggest that we should let who gets pregnant determine the roles they can fulfill in society, or that we should use biological reasons to bar people from roles. "Women can't be firefighters, they're not strong enough." "Only women deserve custody, they nurse the children." "Gays can't be parents, they can't get each other pregnant." >Live how you want to live, but don't demand that the other 95% of >the population sanction your choices, or change the very fabric of >society to fit your life style. I agree 100%. The corollary is true as well - live however you want to live, but don't force the 5% to conform to the roles that the other 95% want them to live in. >BTW, I just got engaged, so I feel like I've got something in this game. Congrats! I just got married, and I understand that there is a societal desire to foster strong families. (The only reason we got married is because we're starting to think about kids.) However, I see no reason that, say, Emily and Chris would make any better or worse parents than Liza and Paul, even though neither set of people can reproduce the 'normal' way. (Chris is female.) That said, I wouldn't be in favor of requiring anyone to support something called "gay marriage". I am strongly in favor of anyone, gay or straight, being able to form a civil union, with all the normal rights of a spouse (i.e. inheritance, decisions made when the other is incapacitated, child custody etc.) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites goose491 0 #69 December 17, 2003 Quote I'll rephrase to 'Only if you take away the political/tax DISadvantages of being married too" For example, the tax inequality. Or did we fix that with this admin? Is that better? Yeah, I guess so... but I'm still confused. I always thought, generally speaking, that being married always helped out at tax time. Of course, I'm not married.... and can't do my own taxes worth a sh*t lol My Karma ran over my Dogma!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rehmwa 2 #70 December 17, 2003 QuoteI always thought, generally speaking, that being married always helped out at tax time./Quote Any married people want to chime in on this one? I'm not sure of the extent of the new tax laws, but before (maybe now, I don't know yet), if one person makes $100,000 and their spouse makes $10,000 they both pay at the higher rate of a combined $110,000). If they were single, the $10,000 income would tax at a much lower rate. And you couldn't get past that by filing separately either. It can be a substantial penalty. (this is much simplified - anyone have clearer example?) Almost always if they were just 'roommates', they'd pay lower taxes total. Not higher, so you have it exactly backwards. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites lawrocket 3 #71 December 17, 2003 QuoteBut in your minimum wage example, isn't the reason for the illegality an effort to protect one of the parties of the contract? Supposedly. Actually, the laws are supposed to protect society, regardless of the interests of the individual. There was a determination made that people should not make less than a certain amount per hour. This was, apparently, a societal benefit. This means that, even if a person wants a job so much he will underbid a competitor to work below minimum wage, that person cannot do so, despite his consent or intentions. Even if he "loves" his work. The "societal benefit" is the reason for denying the freedom to contract below a minimum wage. The "societal benefit" also prohibits gay marriage. And, this prohibition is not a violation of any freedom to contract. The governments have made their determinations, and we cannot contract around them. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Nightingale 0 #72 December 17, 2003 hmm... my mom and dad couldn't have children. Should they have been denied marriage because they couldn't procreate? -Kris (I was adopted, by the way, and couldn't ask for a more wonderful family) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites PhillyKev 0 #73 December 17, 2003 Ok...but what benefit to society is derived by banning gay marriage that doesn't have to do with offending someone's religious sensibilities? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites goose491 0 #74 December 17, 2003 Quote> The purpose and basis of marriage, as I understand it, has always > been to foster and support the creation and rearing of children. > Nature has dictated that this only occurs between a man and > woman, so marriage is only for a man and woman. I have two friends that couldn't get pregnant the normal way. Should they be barred from marriage? Bill, you know the answer to your question is no. But you also know what he said about the purpose and basis of marriage is true. Man and Woman United is the MODEL of a marriage... the reason behind the model may be the getting pregnant part... as well as other "family values". Not being able to get pregnant is not the same thing as not conforming to that MODEL. Quote> However, it is the height of hubris to suggest that several million > years of evolution is wrong. And it is somewhat sexist to suggest that we should let who gets pregnant determine the roles they can fulfill in society, or that we should use biological reasons to bar people from roles. "Women can't be firefighters, they're not strong enough." "Only women deserve custody, they nurse the children." "Gays can't be parents, they can't get each other pregnant." And I was surprised to see you unsing these examples. Sure women can be firefighters... But NOT if they ain't strong enough. I don't think it's even remotely sexist to tell a woman she can't be a firefighter, if she can't pick me up and carry me up/down a bunch of smoke filled stairs. Sorry ladies. There are some Men that don't make the cut either right? Custody shouldn't just arbitrarily be awarded to the woman... but it is awarded to the woman in more cases than not... and that is because they nurse the children. As for the gays being parents? Well, obviously they can! They can adopt, they can have children via surrogate mothers or in-vitro furtilisation.... But, they still fall outside the MODEL of a marriage. Quote>Live how you want to live, but don't demand that the other 95% of >the population sanction your choices, or change the very fabric of >society to fit your life style. I agree 100%. The corollary is true as well - live however you want to live, but don't force the 5% to conform to the roles that the other 95% want you to live in. Cool cool, I'm down wit dat So we aren't forcing the gay man to marry a woman... and we're not forcing the gay woman to marry a man. What we've got is a gay couple, wanting to marry like a straight one. Isn't that more like the 5% forcing the 95% to alter their style? My Karma ran over my Dogma!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites PhillyKev 0 #75 December 17, 2003 QuoteSo we aren't forcing the gay man to marry a woman... and we're not forcing the gay woman to marry a man. What we've got is a gay couple, wanting to marry like a straight one. Isn't that more like the 5% forcing the 95% to alter their style? There are a few states now where gay couples can get married, and have. What have you had to alter to accomadate that? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 4 Next Page 3 of 4 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0 Go To Topic Listing
goose491 0 #57 December 17, 2003 QuoteSo let's hypothesize that the states were to create a new institution called "marriage2" which is initiated by something called a "wedding2" Let's also imagine that the states defined it thusly: "Marriage2 is a union between two men or between two women which has exactly the same benefits and obligations as marriage." Would that be acceptable to you? I think we'd see a more original name than that but If you must be sarcastic about it, I'll stick with a civil answer: Acceptable? Yes. (Technically, it would be 'created' by the homosexual comunity and 'recognized' by the states.) QuoteLet's modify it slightly for a second question: What if the definition of marriage2 allowed heterosexual couples to participate in marriage2 as well? Would that change your answer? Yes. Because your "marriage2" would by definition be a gay marriage. A same sex partnership. Listen. A gay couple is not the same as a straight couple. Nobody can flame me for that statement. It is 100% true. Should they be entitle to the same benefits? Well, I've already said that there shouldn't be any special benefits for married couples but so long as there are, YES! Homosexuality has been becoming more and more acceptable over the years. Would anyone argue that fact? So even if it were 100% acceptable to all today, it still wouldn't mean it's the same as heterosexality. Mine was only a suggestion as I beleive a marriage is a union between man and woman. That it began as a religious ceremony, and was all but f*cked up completely when politics became involved in the slightest. My Karma ran over my Dogma!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #58 December 17, 2003 As far as the government should be concerned it's a legal contract between two people. That's all. Nothing whatsoever should even imply the sex of the people involved.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
goose491 0 #59 December 17, 2003 QuoteQuoteGays are fighting to change that statement... not disprove it. Untrue. I love what is happening in the US. Land of the Free, well only if you comply with the religious beliefs of its leader. Hey Justin! What's up? Bush didn't create the wedding ceremony... it's a little older than he is. The marriage began as a religious ceremony... and it was indeed created as a union between man and woman. Bush is standing fast to this. I for one, would push for separation of church and state. Take away the pollitical 'benefits' of being married in the first place. My Karma ran over my Dogma!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #60 December 17, 2003 QuoteTake away the pollitical 'benefits' of being married in the first place. Only if you take away the political/tax benefits of being single too. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #61 December 17, 2003 I agree with you totally on that point. Too bad that, thanks to the FDR era, freedom to contract ain't so free. Lochner Yep! Amazing how the law of unintended consequences, i.e., progressive politics, ultimately affects progressive politics negatively. The government can ban any contract it wants to ban, on the basis of "public morals." In fact, it may be useful to look at this like a minimum wage law. If I offer to work for $4.00 per hour as a janitor, and prospective employer accepts, such a contract IS one between consenting adults, and the government should have no business meddling in such a private affair, right? Wrong. The employer will be punished for it (and likely reviled among the left). Well, the courts, thanks to the FDR era, do NOT see contracts as a fundamental freedom. Thus, a contract for gay marriage will not be allowable under freedom of contract for the same reason that minimum wage laws disallow contracts for under that wage. Unless we are willing to end minimum wage laws, and prostitution laws, and other such laws limiting power to enter into contract, your belief system, though one which I thoroughly agree with, is unworkable with regard to gay marriage. Of course, your and my viewpoints match with Janice Rogers Brown, the African American Cal. Supreme Court Justice so hated and reviled among the left for her ideas. Do a Google search on "brown and Lochner" and find how hated she is for her suggestions about governmental power over private property and contract power. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
narcimund 0 #62 December 17, 2003 QuoteQuoteLet's modify it slightly for a second question: What if the definition of marriage2 allowed heterosexual couples to participate in marriage2 as well? Would that change your answer? Yes. Because your "marriage2" would by definition be a gay marriage. A same sex partnership. I believe you misunderstood question #2. I was asking if you'd approve just as strongly of marriage2 if INSTEAD of being defined as solely for homosexuals if it allowed heterosexual marriage2 as well. And then the unasked question #3 was going to be, "If the definition allowed both homosexual and heterosexual marraige2s, and if it so happened that heterosexuals happened to choose marriage2s instead of marriages, then eventually marriage would die out. Would you STILL approve?" If not, I think your beliefs are more complicated than you've admitted. First Class Citizen Twice Over Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
goose491 0 #63 December 17, 2003 QuoteQuoteTake away the pollitical 'benefits' of being married in the first place. Only if you take away the political/tax benefits of being single too. Now, which ones would you be refering to? 'cause people are born single. I present that they obtain certain benefits when the get married... and that that shouldn't be. What would you take away from the singles? My Karma ran over my Dogma!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #64 December 17, 2003 But in your minimum wage example, isn't the reason for the illegality an effort to protect one of the parties of the contract? Who is being protected by making a marriage contract between homosexuals illegal? As far as I can tell, it is only to protect third parties from seeing someone acting in a way inconsistent with their own beliefs. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Treejumps 0 #65 December 17, 2003 I know I shouldn't bother...but, I think that Bush's morals and values are representative of an overwhelming majority of Americans, myself included. The purpose and basis of marriage, as I understand it, has always been to foster and support the creation and rearing of children. Nature has dictated that this only occurs between a man and woman, so marriage is only for a man and woman. Tha being said, I could care less how people live if it doesn't involve me, and doesn't harm others, or farm animals. However, it is the height of hubris to suggest that several million years of evolution is wrong. Live how you want to live, but don't demand that the other 95% of the population sanction your choices, or change the very fabric of society to fit your life style. BTW, I just got engaged, so I feel like I've got something in this game. Cya. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #66 December 17, 2003 QuoteQuoteQuoteTake away the pollitical 'benefits' of being married in the first place. Only if you take away the political/tax benefits of being single too. etc What would you take away from the singles? I'll rephrase to 'Only if you take away the political/tax DISadvantages of being married too" For example, the tax inequality. Or did we fix that with this admin? Is that better? ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
goose491 0 #67 December 17, 2003 Quote I believe you misunderstood question #2. No, I understood... it was loaded. QuoteI was asking if you'd approve just as strongly of marriage2 if INSTEAD of being defined as solely for homosexuals if it allowed heterosexual marriage2 as well. And I answered No. QuoteAnd then the unasked question #3 was going to be, "If the definition allowed both homosexual and heterosexual marraige2s, and if it so happened that heterosexuals happened to choose marriage2s instead of marriages, then eventually marriage would die out. Would you STILL approve?" Didn't have to be psychic to see that one coming. My suggestion was a new type of union. One for homosexual couples. So you would have one for gays, and one for straights. I think the couple is different, the lifstyle is different, the ceremony should be too. Furthermore, it would be a milestone in the history of Gay rights! QuoteIf not, I think your beliefs are more complicated than you've admitted. On gays? Somewhat, that's why I invited you to PMs. In terms of this particular topic however, my beleifs are simple: -That a marriage is between a man and a woman. -That a man and a man cannot join into the same institution. -That a woman and a woman cannot enter into the same institution BUT, -Because they should have every same right, homosexual couples should have a cermony of their own to take their relationships to the next level too. My Karma ran over my Dogma!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,090 #68 December 17, 2003 > The purpose and basis of marriage, as I understand it, has always > been to foster and support the creation and rearing of children. > Nature has dictated that this only occurs between a man and > woman, so marriage is only for a man and woman. I have two friends that couldn't get pregnant the normal way. Should they be barred from marriage? > However, it is the height of hubris to suggest that several million > years of evolution is wrong. And it is somewhat sexist to suggest that we should let who gets pregnant determine the roles they can fulfill in society, or that we should use biological reasons to bar people from roles. "Women can't be firefighters, they're not strong enough." "Only women deserve custody, they nurse the children." "Gays can't be parents, they can't get each other pregnant." >Live how you want to live, but don't demand that the other 95% of >the population sanction your choices, or change the very fabric of >society to fit your life style. I agree 100%. The corollary is true as well - live however you want to live, but don't force the 5% to conform to the roles that the other 95% want them to live in. >BTW, I just got engaged, so I feel like I've got something in this game. Congrats! I just got married, and I understand that there is a societal desire to foster strong families. (The only reason we got married is because we're starting to think about kids.) However, I see no reason that, say, Emily and Chris would make any better or worse parents than Liza and Paul, even though neither set of people can reproduce the 'normal' way. (Chris is female.) That said, I wouldn't be in favor of requiring anyone to support something called "gay marriage". I am strongly in favor of anyone, gay or straight, being able to form a civil union, with all the normal rights of a spouse (i.e. inheritance, decisions made when the other is incapacitated, child custody etc.) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
goose491 0 #69 December 17, 2003 Quote I'll rephrase to 'Only if you take away the political/tax DISadvantages of being married too" For example, the tax inequality. Or did we fix that with this admin? Is that better? Yeah, I guess so... but I'm still confused. I always thought, generally speaking, that being married always helped out at tax time. Of course, I'm not married.... and can't do my own taxes worth a sh*t lol My Karma ran over my Dogma!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #70 December 17, 2003 QuoteI always thought, generally speaking, that being married always helped out at tax time./Quote Any married people want to chime in on this one? I'm not sure of the extent of the new tax laws, but before (maybe now, I don't know yet), if one person makes $100,000 and their spouse makes $10,000 they both pay at the higher rate of a combined $110,000). If they were single, the $10,000 income would tax at a much lower rate. And you couldn't get past that by filing separately either. It can be a substantial penalty. (this is much simplified - anyone have clearer example?) Almost always if they were just 'roommates', they'd pay lower taxes total. Not higher, so you have it exactly backwards. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites lawrocket 3 #71 December 17, 2003 QuoteBut in your minimum wage example, isn't the reason for the illegality an effort to protect one of the parties of the contract? Supposedly. Actually, the laws are supposed to protect society, regardless of the interests of the individual. There was a determination made that people should not make less than a certain amount per hour. This was, apparently, a societal benefit. This means that, even if a person wants a job so much he will underbid a competitor to work below minimum wage, that person cannot do so, despite his consent or intentions. Even if he "loves" his work. The "societal benefit" is the reason for denying the freedom to contract below a minimum wage. The "societal benefit" also prohibits gay marriage. And, this prohibition is not a violation of any freedom to contract. The governments have made their determinations, and we cannot contract around them. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Nightingale 0 #72 December 17, 2003 hmm... my mom and dad couldn't have children. Should they have been denied marriage because they couldn't procreate? -Kris (I was adopted, by the way, and couldn't ask for a more wonderful family) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites PhillyKev 0 #73 December 17, 2003 Ok...but what benefit to society is derived by banning gay marriage that doesn't have to do with offending someone's religious sensibilities? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites goose491 0 #74 December 17, 2003 Quote> The purpose and basis of marriage, as I understand it, has always > been to foster and support the creation and rearing of children. > Nature has dictated that this only occurs between a man and > woman, so marriage is only for a man and woman. I have two friends that couldn't get pregnant the normal way. Should they be barred from marriage? Bill, you know the answer to your question is no. But you also know what he said about the purpose and basis of marriage is true. Man and Woman United is the MODEL of a marriage... the reason behind the model may be the getting pregnant part... as well as other "family values". Not being able to get pregnant is not the same thing as not conforming to that MODEL. Quote> However, it is the height of hubris to suggest that several million > years of evolution is wrong. And it is somewhat sexist to suggest that we should let who gets pregnant determine the roles they can fulfill in society, or that we should use biological reasons to bar people from roles. "Women can't be firefighters, they're not strong enough." "Only women deserve custody, they nurse the children." "Gays can't be parents, they can't get each other pregnant." And I was surprised to see you unsing these examples. Sure women can be firefighters... But NOT if they ain't strong enough. I don't think it's even remotely sexist to tell a woman she can't be a firefighter, if she can't pick me up and carry me up/down a bunch of smoke filled stairs. Sorry ladies. There are some Men that don't make the cut either right? Custody shouldn't just arbitrarily be awarded to the woman... but it is awarded to the woman in more cases than not... and that is because they nurse the children. As for the gays being parents? Well, obviously they can! They can adopt, they can have children via surrogate mothers or in-vitro furtilisation.... But, they still fall outside the MODEL of a marriage. Quote>Live how you want to live, but don't demand that the other 95% of >the population sanction your choices, or change the very fabric of >society to fit your life style. I agree 100%. The corollary is true as well - live however you want to live, but don't force the 5% to conform to the roles that the other 95% want you to live in. Cool cool, I'm down wit dat So we aren't forcing the gay man to marry a woman... and we're not forcing the gay woman to marry a man. What we've got is a gay couple, wanting to marry like a straight one. Isn't that more like the 5% forcing the 95% to alter their style? My Karma ran over my Dogma!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites PhillyKev 0 #75 December 17, 2003 QuoteSo we aren't forcing the gay man to marry a woman... and we're not forcing the gay woman to marry a man. What we've got is a gay couple, wanting to marry like a straight one. Isn't that more like the 5% forcing the 95% to alter their style? There are a few states now where gay couples can get married, and have. What have you had to alter to accomadate that? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 4 Next Page 3 of 4 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0 Go To Topic Listing
lawrocket 3 #71 December 17, 2003 QuoteBut in your minimum wage example, isn't the reason for the illegality an effort to protect one of the parties of the contract? Supposedly. Actually, the laws are supposed to protect society, regardless of the interests of the individual. There was a determination made that people should not make less than a certain amount per hour. This was, apparently, a societal benefit. This means that, even if a person wants a job so much he will underbid a competitor to work below minimum wage, that person cannot do so, despite his consent or intentions. Even if he "loves" his work. The "societal benefit" is the reason for denying the freedom to contract below a minimum wage. The "societal benefit" also prohibits gay marriage. And, this prohibition is not a violation of any freedom to contract. The governments have made their determinations, and we cannot contract around them. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Nightingale 0 #72 December 17, 2003 hmm... my mom and dad couldn't have children. Should they have been denied marriage because they couldn't procreate? -Kris (I was adopted, by the way, and couldn't ask for a more wonderful family) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #73 December 17, 2003 Ok...but what benefit to society is derived by banning gay marriage that doesn't have to do with offending someone's religious sensibilities? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
goose491 0 #74 December 17, 2003 Quote> The purpose and basis of marriage, as I understand it, has always > been to foster and support the creation and rearing of children. > Nature has dictated that this only occurs between a man and > woman, so marriage is only for a man and woman. I have two friends that couldn't get pregnant the normal way. Should they be barred from marriage? Bill, you know the answer to your question is no. But you also know what he said about the purpose and basis of marriage is true. Man and Woman United is the MODEL of a marriage... the reason behind the model may be the getting pregnant part... as well as other "family values". Not being able to get pregnant is not the same thing as not conforming to that MODEL. Quote> However, it is the height of hubris to suggest that several million > years of evolution is wrong. And it is somewhat sexist to suggest that we should let who gets pregnant determine the roles they can fulfill in society, or that we should use biological reasons to bar people from roles. "Women can't be firefighters, they're not strong enough." "Only women deserve custody, they nurse the children." "Gays can't be parents, they can't get each other pregnant." And I was surprised to see you unsing these examples. Sure women can be firefighters... But NOT if they ain't strong enough. I don't think it's even remotely sexist to tell a woman she can't be a firefighter, if she can't pick me up and carry me up/down a bunch of smoke filled stairs. Sorry ladies. There are some Men that don't make the cut either right? Custody shouldn't just arbitrarily be awarded to the woman... but it is awarded to the woman in more cases than not... and that is because they nurse the children. As for the gays being parents? Well, obviously they can! They can adopt, they can have children via surrogate mothers or in-vitro furtilisation.... But, they still fall outside the MODEL of a marriage. Quote>Live how you want to live, but don't demand that the other 95% of >the population sanction your choices, or change the very fabric of >society to fit your life style. I agree 100%. The corollary is true as well - live however you want to live, but don't force the 5% to conform to the roles that the other 95% want you to live in. Cool cool, I'm down wit dat So we aren't forcing the gay man to marry a woman... and we're not forcing the gay woman to marry a man. What we've got is a gay couple, wanting to marry like a straight one. Isn't that more like the 5% forcing the 95% to alter their style? My Karma ran over my Dogma!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #75 December 17, 2003 QuoteSo we aren't forcing the gay man to marry a woman... and we're not forcing the gay woman to marry a man. What we've got is a gay couple, wanting to marry like a straight one. Isn't that more like the 5% forcing the 95% to alter their style? There are a few states now where gay couples can get married, and have. What have you had to alter to accomadate that? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
