riddler 0 #26 November 18, 2003 QuoteWestern civilization is doomed anyway, so it really doesn't make much difference in the big picture. It's the entire human species that is doomed. But it doesn't have anything to do with gay marriage.Trapped on the surface of a sphere. XKCD Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,118 #27 November 18, 2003 > think there must be limits, for the sake of eugenics if nothing else. > Incest is unlawful for moral reasons, but for legitimate medical > reasons too. I mean, you can't stop Bubba and Bobbie Jo if they > want to unite and produce a genetic freak . . Exactly. > but the state doesn't have to legitimize it, either. Why not? Would you deny a civil union to a woman who wants to marry a man who's been exposed to so much radiation his children are almost certainly going to be deformed? Would you tell a couple with RH incompatibility that they can't get married, because their children will likely have problems? >Once again, it's a hopeless waste of time to even debate it. Western > civilization is doomed. I think it's been doomed for a long time - it just has this nasty habit of not dying when it's supposed to. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
CrazyIvan 0 #28 November 18, 2003 QuoteI think it's been doomed for a long time - it just has this nasty habit of not dying when it's supposed to I guess God is taking his time pressing CTRL + ALT + DELETE __________________________________________ Blue Skies and May the Force be with you. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest #29 November 18, 2003 Quote Why not? Would you deny a civil union to a woman who wants to marry a man who's been exposed to so much radiation his children are almost certainly going to be deformed? Would you tell a couple with RH incompatibility that they can't get married, because their children will likely have problems? Quote Individual versus the state here. I'd say no, because this would place an undue burden upon everybody else. I'd also hope the people involved would have the good sense to make the best decision for themselves, but humans seldom work that way. This is why I oppose drug legalization, though in the long, long run, it would have the net effect of doing away with the problem. QuoteI think it's been doomed for a long time - it just has this nasty habit of not dying when it's supposed to. I know: "...and astonishingly hard to kill." (Heinlein) mh"The mouse does not know life until it is in the mouth of the cat." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Nightingale 0 #30 November 18, 2003 California (and most other states) no longer require blood tests to get married. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Harksaw 0 #31 November 18, 2003 Allowing homosexual unions will not stop other people from reproducing. I fail to see how allowing them the same legal status to homosexuals will affect anyone else's life in any way at all. I actually heard on the radio the other day, someone sayging that if homosexual unions became a reality, it would "take away our freedom." Where do they come up with this stuff? Edit: Heres the quote: "I see this as a case where civilization itself is weakened, because the basic family unit must now share limited social resources with those who for the most part won't sustain society (id est, reproduce. Without any replacement units, there can be no civilization. Ergo, it's an indirect attack upon the underpinnings of modern society itself). " They are sharing the same resources that they would be, had the homosexual union not been legally recognized.__________________________________________________ I started skydiving for the money and the chicks. Oh, wait. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Nightingale 0 #32 November 18, 2003 so, it seemed like what you're saying is that society shouldn't allow people to marry who can't reproduce. what about: 1. the woman or man who struggles with infertility? 2. the older couple who found each other late in life and are hopelessly in love? should they not be allowed to marry either? we all share in society's resources, married or not. Marriage just grants rights to the spouses, and those rights shouldn't be gender specific. and gays and lesbians most definitely can have and raise children, through adoption, surrogacy, or donor genetic material. THE SAME WAY THAT HETEROS WITH FERTILITY PROBLMES HAVE KIDS. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites jlmiracle 7 #33 November 18, 2003 Quote Individual versus the state here. I'd say no, because this would place an undue burden upon everybody else. I'd also hope the people involved would have the good sense to make the best decision for themselves, but humans seldom work that way. Please explain with examples what burden same sex marriages are going to put on society. JudyBe kinder than necessary because everyone you meet is fighting some kind of battle. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Guest #34 November 18, 2003 QuoteQuote Individual versus the state here. I'd say no, because this would place an undue burden upon everybody else. I'd also hope the people involved would have the good sense to make the best decision for themselves, but humans seldom work that way. Please explain with examples what burden same sex marriages are going to put on society. Judy Please re-read my remarks. This action, imho, serves to undermine the institution itself, by legitimizing unions that are diametrically opposed to its actual purpose (de facto state sponsorship of societal units that exist for the common good). Once again, there are many who believe the state shouldn't be involved in the legal union process at all. With respect to legal matters, I agree. I do see that a lot of the squawking has to to with "benefits", real or perceived, however. Perhaps this is the area that should be de-emphasized. An egalitarian would argue that nobody in society should get any kind of break for any reason, no matter how deserving. I frankly think this entire debate exists because of a perceived "haves versus have-nots" with respect to so-called "rights" and so called "benefits". I think it bugs me because it's a mockery of the institution in the spiritual sense, but with respect to the legal, I really don't care. It's just another example of civilization in rapid decline. mh"The mouse does not know life until it is in the mouth of the cat." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Nightingale 0 #35 November 18, 2003 lol... NO BURDEN WHATSOEVER. If anything, allowing marriage will take a burden away from the states... the burden of having to appoint court representatives to make medical decisions for incapacitated people who have a domestic partnership type arrangement. The partner cannot make any medical decisions for the other, because they are not married (or protected under a domestic partnership agreement that includes this clause). In certain states, it will relieve some of the pressure off the child welfare systems, because married people are more likely to adopt children if they cannot raise their own, and statistically, gays and lesbians are more likely to adopt older children than a straight couple would be. There are hundreds of reasons to allow homosexual marriages. one of the most important one being: how would you feel if the hospital refused to allow you to see your loved one on their death bed in the ICU unit of the hospital, simply because you were not legally married, and the only reason you were not legally married is because the state prohibited it? because of other's prejudices, you were unable to say goodbye. The above scenario happened to my friend Sara. She was prohibited by the hospital from seeing her partner, Liane, when Liane had been in a terrible motorcycle accident and the injuries were known to be most probably fatal, brain bleeds and strokes and the like from head injuries. Liane lingered in ICU for almost two weeks, getting progressively worse. During that time, Sara sat in the waiting room while Liane's parents and siblings were allowed to say their goodbyes. Liane's family made it clear to the hospital that they wanted Sara to be permitted to see Liane, but since they were not married or immediate family, the hospital refused to bend its rules. They were registered as domestic partners in California, but Utah, where the accident took place, did not honor California's partnership law at that time. I do not know if the state has altered its view since. I will always remember Sara's voice on the phone crying to me about how Liane was dying and they wouldn't even let her say goodbye. Talk about cruel. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites TheAnvil 0 #36 November 18, 2003 Gibbon is good reading....Vinny the Anvil Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL JACKASS POWER!!!!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites JDBoston 0 #37 November 18, 2003 Then is every man-woman marriage that doesn't happen in a church also "a mockery of the institution in the spiritual sense"? Maybe atheists shouldn't be allowed to marry either? Looks to me like the logic in your argument is being applied selectively, i.e. in bad faith, to something you have an instinctive dislike for already, for no particular logical reason. CF the previous post about straight couples who don't/can't reproduce, and billvon's about genetics. And that's just plain old intellectual dishonesty, no matter how reasonable/logical you try to sound. My $0.02, Joe Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites skydyvr 0 #38 November 18, 2003 QuoteCivil unions are between adult people. Pets are owned, not united with. They are not legal entities; they have no rights or standing under the law. What you are saying is true, but only because our society has defined things that way. I just want to redefine things a bit, just like the gay folks. . . =(_8^(1) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites happythoughts 0 #39 November 18, 2003 QuoteRight....and maybe the 'South' will start lobbying "Same family" marriages Disney World in Orlando was a big proponent of this before it became fashionable. The thing that I don't understand is that companies will pay benefits for "same-sex" partners, but not "different-sex" couples who live together. They need to make one rule. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites lawrocket 3 #40 November 18, 2003 Actually, it's kind of proof of the socialistic tendencies of America. Janice Rogers Brown points that out and is reviled. Gay Marriage is needed so that the significant others can get benefits paid for by others. I wonder if this whole thing would be necessary had the population not learned to lean on everyone else. I wonder fi gay marriage would be an issue at all but-for the whole entitlement stuff... My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Nightingale 0 #41 November 18, 2003 the presumption here is that the same sex partners would choose to marry if they could. most companies require registration with the state as "domestic partners" before extending benefits. the hetero couple chooses not to be married, and therefore chooses to decline these benefits. not a perfect system, but the best we can do at the moment. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites CrazyIvan 0 #42 November 18, 2003 QuoteThe thing that I don't understand is that companies will pay benefits for "same-sex" partners, but not "different-sex" couples who live together HELL NO!!! that would be too controversial. __________________________________________ Blue Skies and May the Force be with you. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Nightingale 0 #43 November 18, 2003 I know that for my uncle and his boyfriend, the issue is not benefits. they both have wonderful jobs and wonderful benefit packages. the issue is that they want to be married for the same reason hetero folks want to be married. they love each other. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites lawrocket 3 #44 November 18, 2003 And that's the best reason, isn't it? But, unfortunately, that is not the main issue being marketed. The main issue is the benefits issue. Sadly, society won't rally around love like they will around the issue of benefits. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 3,118 #45 November 18, 2003 "I see this as a case where civilization itself is weakened, because the basic family unit must now share limited social resources with those who for the most part won't sustain society (id est, reproduce. Without any replacement units, there can be no civilization." ------------------ I would worry about any opinons from a guy who considers children "replacement units." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 3,118 #46 November 18, 2003 >I just want to redefine things a bit, just like the gay folks. Chickens are not people. Sorry, that analogy simply makes no sense. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 3,118 #47 November 18, 2003 >The thing that I don't understand is that companies will pay benefits > for "same-sex" partners, but not "different-sex" couples who live > together. They need to make one rule. There is one rule. Any civil union (including marriage and legal guardianship/adoption) is covered, at least at my company. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites happythoughts 0 #48 November 18, 2003 Quote>The thing that I don't understand is that companies will pay benefits > for "same-sex" partners, but not "different-sex" couples who live > together. They need to make one rule. There is one rule. Any civil union (including marriage and legal guardianship/adoption) is covered, at least at my company. I am talking about medical coverage. Hetero couples who are living together, and not married, cannot get the same coverage that is provided to same-sex couples. Having a legal document to define all this stuff was the purpose of a marriage license (not the church stuff). For same-sex couples, they are making exceptions. There should be one rule. Let them get married and divorced like everyone else and play by one set of rules. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 3,118 #49 November 18, 2003 >There should be one rule. Let them get married and divorced like > everyone else and play by one set of rules. If gay marriage were legal, I'd agree. If it's not legal, there needs to be another mechanism to provide for medical coverage for someone's partner (in my opinion.) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Guest #50 November 18, 2003 QuoteActually, it's kind of proof of the socialistic tendencies of America. Janice Rogers Brown points that out and is reviled. Gay Marriage is needed so that the significant others can get benefits paid for by others. I wonder if this whole thing would be necessary had the population not learned to lean on everyone else. I wonder fi gay marriage would be an issue at all but-for the whole entitlement stuff... "Always follow the money. If it isn't about the money, it's about the money." mh"The mouse does not know life until it is in the mouth of the cat." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 Next Page 2 of 3 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
Nightingale 0 #30 November 18, 2003 California (and most other states) no longer require blood tests to get married. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Harksaw 0 #31 November 18, 2003 Allowing homosexual unions will not stop other people from reproducing. I fail to see how allowing them the same legal status to homosexuals will affect anyone else's life in any way at all. I actually heard on the radio the other day, someone sayging that if homosexual unions became a reality, it would "take away our freedom." Where do they come up with this stuff? Edit: Heres the quote: "I see this as a case where civilization itself is weakened, because the basic family unit must now share limited social resources with those who for the most part won't sustain society (id est, reproduce. Without any replacement units, there can be no civilization. Ergo, it's an indirect attack upon the underpinnings of modern society itself). " They are sharing the same resources that they would be, had the homosexual union not been legally recognized.__________________________________________________ I started skydiving for the money and the chicks. Oh, wait. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Nightingale 0 #32 November 18, 2003 so, it seemed like what you're saying is that society shouldn't allow people to marry who can't reproduce. what about: 1. the woman or man who struggles with infertility? 2. the older couple who found each other late in life and are hopelessly in love? should they not be allowed to marry either? we all share in society's resources, married or not. Marriage just grants rights to the spouses, and those rights shouldn't be gender specific. and gays and lesbians most definitely can have and raise children, through adoption, surrogacy, or donor genetic material. THE SAME WAY THAT HETEROS WITH FERTILITY PROBLMES HAVE KIDS. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jlmiracle 7 #33 November 18, 2003 Quote Individual versus the state here. I'd say no, because this would place an undue burden upon everybody else. I'd also hope the people involved would have the good sense to make the best decision for themselves, but humans seldom work that way. Please explain with examples what burden same sex marriages are going to put on society. JudyBe kinder than necessary because everyone you meet is fighting some kind of battle. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest #34 November 18, 2003 QuoteQuote Individual versus the state here. I'd say no, because this would place an undue burden upon everybody else. I'd also hope the people involved would have the good sense to make the best decision for themselves, but humans seldom work that way. Please explain with examples what burden same sex marriages are going to put on society. Judy Please re-read my remarks. This action, imho, serves to undermine the institution itself, by legitimizing unions that are diametrically opposed to its actual purpose (de facto state sponsorship of societal units that exist for the common good). Once again, there are many who believe the state shouldn't be involved in the legal union process at all. With respect to legal matters, I agree. I do see that a lot of the squawking has to to with "benefits", real or perceived, however. Perhaps this is the area that should be de-emphasized. An egalitarian would argue that nobody in society should get any kind of break for any reason, no matter how deserving. I frankly think this entire debate exists because of a perceived "haves versus have-nots" with respect to so-called "rights" and so called "benefits". I think it bugs me because it's a mockery of the institution in the spiritual sense, but with respect to the legal, I really don't care. It's just another example of civilization in rapid decline. mh"The mouse does not know life until it is in the mouth of the cat." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Nightingale 0 #35 November 18, 2003 lol... NO BURDEN WHATSOEVER. If anything, allowing marriage will take a burden away from the states... the burden of having to appoint court representatives to make medical decisions for incapacitated people who have a domestic partnership type arrangement. The partner cannot make any medical decisions for the other, because they are not married (or protected under a domestic partnership agreement that includes this clause). In certain states, it will relieve some of the pressure off the child welfare systems, because married people are more likely to adopt children if they cannot raise their own, and statistically, gays and lesbians are more likely to adopt older children than a straight couple would be. There are hundreds of reasons to allow homosexual marriages. one of the most important one being: how would you feel if the hospital refused to allow you to see your loved one on their death bed in the ICU unit of the hospital, simply because you were not legally married, and the only reason you were not legally married is because the state prohibited it? because of other's prejudices, you were unable to say goodbye. The above scenario happened to my friend Sara. She was prohibited by the hospital from seeing her partner, Liane, when Liane had been in a terrible motorcycle accident and the injuries were known to be most probably fatal, brain bleeds and strokes and the like from head injuries. Liane lingered in ICU for almost two weeks, getting progressively worse. During that time, Sara sat in the waiting room while Liane's parents and siblings were allowed to say their goodbyes. Liane's family made it clear to the hospital that they wanted Sara to be permitted to see Liane, but since they were not married or immediate family, the hospital refused to bend its rules. They were registered as domestic partners in California, but Utah, where the accident took place, did not honor California's partnership law at that time. I do not know if the state has altered its view since. I will always remember Sara's voice on the phone crying to me about how Liane was dying and they wouldn't even let her say goodbye. Talk about cruel. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TheAnvil 0 #36 November 18, 2003 Gibbon is good reading....Vinny the Anvil Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL JACKASS POWER!!!!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JDBoston 0 #37 November 18, 2003 Then is every man-woman marriage that doesn't happen in a church also "a mockery of the institution in the spiritual sense"? Maybe atheists shouldn't be allowed to marry either? Looks to me like the logic in your argument is being applied selectively, i.e. in bad faith, to something you have an instinctive dislike for already, for no particular logical reason. CF the previous post about straight couples who don't/can't reproduce, and billvon's about genetics. And that's just plain old intellectual dishonesty, no matter how reasonable/logical you try to sound. My $0.02, Joe Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skydyvr 0 #38 November 18, 2003 QuoteCivil unions are between adult people. Pets are owned, not united with. They are not legal entities; they have no rights or standing under the law. What you are saying is true, but only because our society has defined things that way. I just want to redefine things a bit, just like the gay folks. . . =(_8^(1) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
happythoughts 0 #39 November 18, 2003 QuoteRight....and maybe the 'South' will start lobbying "Same family" marriages Disney World in Orlando was a big proponent of this before it became fashionable. The thing that I don't understand is that companies will pay benefits for "same-sex" partners, but not "different-sex" couples who live together. They need to make one rule. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #40 November 18, 2003 Actually, it's kind of proof of the socialistic tendencies of America. Janice Rogers Brown points that out and is reviled. Gay Marriage is needed so that the significant others can get benefits paid for by others. I wonder if this whole thing would be necessary had the population not learned to lean on everyone else. I wonder fi gay marriage would be an issue at all but-for the whole entitlement stuff... My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Nightingale 0 #41 November 18, 2003 the presumption here is that the same sex partners would choose to marry if they could. most companies require registration with the state as "domestic partners" before extending benefits. the hetero couple chooses not to be married, and therefore chooses to decline these benefits. not a perfect system, but the best we can do at the moment. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
CrazyIvan 0 #42 November 18, 2003 QuoteThe thing that I don't understand is that companies will pay benefits for "same-sex" partners, but not "different-sex" couples who live together HELL NO!!! that would be too controversial. __________________________________________ Blue Skies and May the Force be with you. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Nightingale 0 #43 November 18, 2003 I know that for my uncle and his boyfriend, the issue is not benefits. they both have wonderful jobs and wonderful benefit packages. the issue is that they want to be married for the same reason hetero folks want to be married. they love each other. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #44 November 18, 2003 And that's the best reason, isn't it? But, unfortunately, that is not the main issue being marketed. The main issue is the benefits issue. Sadly, society won't rally around love like they will around the issue of benefits. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,118 #45 November 18, 2003 "I see this as a case where civilization itself is weakened, because the basic family unit must now share limited social resources with those who for the most part won't sustain society (id est, reproduce. Without any replacement units, there can be no civilization." ------------------ I would worry about any opinons from a guy who considers children "replacement units." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,118 #46 November 18, 2003 >I just want to redefine things a bit, just like the gay folks. Chickens are not people. Sorry, that analogy simply makes no sense. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,118 #47 November 18, 2003 >The thing that I don't understand is that companies will pay benefits > for "same-sex" partners, but not "different-sex" couples who live > together. They need to make one rule. There is one rule. Any civil union (including marriage and legal guardianship/adoption) is covered, at least at my company. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
happythoughts 0 #48 November 18, 2003 Quote>The thing that I don't understand is that companies will pay benefits > for "same-sex" partners, but not "different-sex" couples who live > together. They need to make one rule. There is one rule. Any civil union (including marriage and legal guardianship/adoption) is covered, at least at my company. I am talking about medical coverage. Hetero couples who are living together, and not married, cannot get the same coverage that is provided to same-sex couples. Having a legal document to define all this stuff was the purpose of a marriage license (not the church stuff). For same-sex couples, they are making exceptions. There should be one rule. Let them get married and divorced like everyone else and play by one set of rules. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,118 #49 November 18, 2003 >There should be one rule. Let them get married and divorced like > everyone else and play by one set of rules. If gay marriage were legal, I'd agree. If it's not legal, there needs to be another mechanism to provide for medical coverage for someone's partner (in my opinion.) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest #50 November 18, 2003 QuoteActually, it's kind of proof of the socialistic tendencies of America. Janice Rogers Brown points that out and is reviled. Gay Marriage is needed so that the significant others can get benefits paid for by others. I wonder if this whole thing would be necessary had the population not learned to lean on everyone else. I wonder fi gay marriage would be an issue at all but-for the whole entitlement stuff... "Always follow the money. If it isn't about the money, it's about the money." mh"The mouse does not know life until it is in the mouth of the cat." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
