| Author |
Message |
    
greenetree
Supporter
Username: Greenetree
Post Number: 7980
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, June 8, 2006 - 11:39 am: | 
|
Hoops - I gotta be honest. I'm not sure that I have the time to engage in mental masturbation today.
In my experience, there are two kinds of bigots:
1) The Ignorant but Salvageable bigot - someone learned hate from their parents, growing up, whatever and never had much exposure to __________. These people are capable of learning and (to borrow a phrase) growing up and coming to an informed decision about ____________. Most times, they realize that people are pretty much the same. Angels, •••-holes and everything in between come in different stripes.
2) The Spin Doctor bigot. This is a somewhat intelligent person who knows the __________, has heard all kinds of facts on why bigotry and discrimination is wrong and hurtful and chooses to hold on to his/her views. This person can "spin" their opinion as artfully as a Cirque de Soliel acrobat. There is often a "what's in it for me/how will I be hurt" component to their thought process. They have chosen to be a bigot, but don't have the balls to say so. Therefore, they hide in statements such as "states rights", I don't care what you do", "you shouldn't break the law" and other such drivel. They fool no one but themselves in their quest to distance themselves from themselves. This is the current, semi-acceptable version of "I don't care if my daughter dates a black guy. It's just that other people would give them such a rough time."
I have found that engaging the Spin Doctor is something best left for a rainy afternoon, when I feel like hearing myself talk, as it were. Because an exchange of viewpoints and learning experience are as elusive as Bin Laden.
Oh, I suppose that I could be a bit generous and say that the focus is in the wrong place; what people in support of GM really want is equality under the law. I don't need to rehash those rights because Spin Doctor knows it. Spin Doctor just doesn't think that everyone deserves the same rights that he/she is constitionally entitled to.
|
S.L.K.s. Ghost
Citizen
Username: Scrotisloknows
Post Number: 1634
Registered: 10-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, June 8, 2006 - 11:53 am: |
|
greenetree-
This "spin doctor" is impressed with your B-Grade pyschobabble, but this may throw you for a loop
I am all for Gay Marriage. I just understand their is a right way and wrong way about acheiving it. Throwing a "middle finger" hissy fit isn't the way.
Too bad you'll destroy the Constitution to get your alleged "constitutional right."
That makes alot of sense.
-SLK
|
Dave
Supporter
Username: Dave
Post Number: 9795
Registered: 4-1997
| | Posted on Thursday, June 8, 2006 - 12:24 pm: |
|
The Constitution has been enhanced a number of times with positive results:
Amendment I [Religion, Speech, Press, Assembly, Petition (1791)]
Amendment II [Right to Bear Arms (1791)]
Amendment III [Quartering of Troops (1791)]
Amendment IV [Search and Seizure (1791)]
Amendment V [Grand Jury, Double Jeopardy, Self-Incrimination, Due Process (1791)]
Amendment VI [Criminal Prosecutions - Jury Trial, Right to Confront and to Counsel (1791)]
Amendment VII [Common Law Suits - Jury Trial (1791)]
Amendment VIII [Excess Bail or Fines, Cruel and Unusual Punishment (1791)]
Amendment IX [Non-Enumerated Rights (1791)]
Amendment X [Rights Reserved to States (1791)]
Amendment XI [Suits Against a State (1795)]
Amendment XII [Election of President and Vice-President (1804)]
Amendment XIII [Abolition of Slavery (1865)]
Amendment XIV [Privileges and Immunities, Due Process, Equal Protection, Apportionment of Representatives, Civil War Disqualification and Debt (1868)]
Amendment XV [Rights Not to Be Denied on Account of Race (1870)]
Amendment XVI [Income Tax (1913)]
Amendment XVII [Election of Senators (1913)
Amendment XVIII [Prohibition (1919)]
Amendment XIX [Women's Right to Vote (1920)
Amendment XX [Presidential Term and Succession (1933)]
Amendment XXI [Repeal of Prohibition (1933)]
Amendment XXII [Two Term Limit on President (1951)]
Amendment XXIII [Presidential Vote in D.C. (1961)]
Amendment XXIV [Poll Tax (1964)]
Amendment XXV [Presidential Succession (1967)]
Amendment XXVI [Right to Vote at Age 18 (1971)] |
Rastro
Citizen
Username: Rastro
Post Number: 3338
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, June 8, 2006 - 1:47 pm: |
|
SLK, I am usually the last person to equate the "plight" of two minorities, but I wonder what your reaction would have been to reading the following in one of your high school textbooks as a quote from someone in the 50s or 60s:
I am not asking you to be nicey nice about anything but a little respect for the law would be peachy. What do you expect when the pro Inter-racial Marriage (IRM) crowd defiantly break to law? That will sure win alot of hearts and minds.
You are treading water with your feeble attempt seeking a sympathy vote (oh poor me, I can't get married), another reason the concept of IRM is experiencing a current backlash.
You have issues with a constitutional amendment banning IRM but you have no issue with bypassing the constitutional process to get what you want(IRM). Do you know what that spells in my book?
IRM is a state matter that should be left up to the states to decide. If the IRM crowd pursued this route rather than "it is my constitutional right" you wouldn't be experiencing this BS today. The last time the black community took this route about "rights infringements" alot of them ended up dead.
Now, to some of your points:
Quote:I am not asking you to be nicey nice about anything but a little respect for the law would be peachy. What do you expect when the pro GM crowd defiantly break to law? That will sure win alot of hearts and minds.
It's called civil disobedience. If our forefathers had "a little respect for the law" we would not have the country we all love so much. Many civil rights issues are only resolved through civil disobedience.
Quote:You have issues with a constitutional amendment banning GM but you have no issue with bypassing the constitutional process to get what you want(GM). Do you know what that spells in my book?
There is no Constitutional process to allow for Gay Marriage. As you say below, it is a state matter. Previously you (I think it was you) asked about whether DOMA might be unconstitutional. I would think it is (though I am no scholar of the Constitution or the DOMA), since it allows one state to nullify a contract undertaken in another state.
Quote:GM is a state matter that should be left up to the states to decide. If the GM crowd pursued this route rather than "it is my constitutional right" you wouldn't be experiencing this BS today.
Actually, it is not the "pro-GM crowd" that is pursuing this at the Constitutional level. It is the "anti-GM crowd." The only people talking about a Constitutional amendment are those that want to deny certain people the right to marry.
Quote:The last time the gay community took this route about "rights infringements" alot of them ended up dead.
Though I know how you meant this, it could easily be construed as a threat.
Finally, you wrote
Quote:BTW, you don't have a "constitutional right" be married. Never had, never will...
Actually, I am expecting, within my lifetime, a Constitutional requirement to get married by a certain age. And once married, have children within a certain time period. Everyone has an obligation to procreate, and the only legitimate way to do that is to be married first.
 |
S.L.K.s. Ghost
Citizen
Username: Scrotisloknows
Post Number: 1637
Registered: 10-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, June 8, 2006 - 2:29 pm: |
|
Rastro-
Wow! Between your post and work my brain is fried at the moment. Give me some time to get back to you.... 
-SLK |
TomR
Citizen
Username: Tomr
Post Number: 1145
Registered: 6-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, June 8, 2006 - 3:05 pm: |
|
Nancy, Greentree, et. al.,
The primary disticntion between interracial marriage and same sex marriage is the existance of Article I of our Constitution, and Amendments XIII, XIV and XV thereto.
We made a bad mistake in 1789, and rectified it, on paper at least, with those Amendments.
SLK is almost right. ONE of the ways to rectify what many intelligent people see as a gross mistake in our society; is to get our States' legislatures to authorize the issuance of marriage licenses to same sex couples. In this circumstance, same sex marriage is a State matter.
The other way to rectify this "mistake" is to to propound a convincing legal argument, pursuading a Court of Competent jurisdiction, that the legislatures' failures to correct the "mistake" is a violation of some right afforded under either a given State's Constitution, or our federal Constitution.
The three times, with which I am familiar, that this issue has gone through a State's Court system, Massachusetts, New York and New Jersey, the pursuasive argument has been made, so far, only in Massachusetts. (Hey, aren't they trying to amend their State's Constitution to reverse the Court's decision).
What is even more curious, it was only in the Massachusetts case that the petitioners brought up the federal Fourteenth Amendment argument. (It was a loser, but they prevailed on the State Constitutional argument).
Which brings me to two questions:
Why haven't the people of any State been able to convince their legislatures to authorize same sex marriage? And;
Why aren't petititoners in other cases advancing an argument for equal protection under the federal Forteenth Amendment? (I know for a fact that they did not in New Jersey; and if my recollection serves me correctly, the New York petitioners also did not raise the argument).
Just as an aside, the "gay rights" cases which come readily come to mind, Bowers and Lawrence, both raised the Forteenth Amendment argument. Why not on the marriage thing?
I, and others have previously posed the queries of whence the "right to marry" arises; and what, if any, if the legal basis for a Court's establishing such a right.
The responses, when any appeared, were, in my opinion, retoric; and certainly unpersuasive, legally.
In closing I'll repeat my opening (don't you just love when people feel compelled to repeat themselves) the primary disticntion between interracial marriage and same sex marriage is the existence of Article I of our Constitution, and the Thirteenth, Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments.
Comparisons of the two issues are at best, disingenuous; if not wholly specious.
TomR
Before anybody goes off on a wild tangent; I think the proposed amendment was a bad, very bad, idea; and am not against same sex marriage. |
Rastro
Citizen
Username: Rastro
Post Number: 3339
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, June 8, 2006 - 3:36 pm: |
|
Tom, my intent on linking the two issues (gay and interracial marriage) was not to form a legal basis for gay marriage. It was to give context to how ridiculous some arguments against it can be. Today we consider it abhorrent to deny a man and a woman the ability to marry because of one aspect of their genetics (race). But we do not have the same feelings toward denying a different group the ability to marry based on another aspect of their genetics (sexual "preference").
While they may be two separate issue legally (given the injustices that the Constitution righted with the above mentioned Amendments), there is some level of moral equivalence.
You may call my arguments faulty, and point out that fault. But I would not concede they are disingenuous. Specious? Depends on the definition you would use. There is no intent to deceive.
Tom, as an attorney, what is your opinion on the legality of DOMA - specifically the aspect that allows one state to not recognize a legal marriage in another state? I don't know if there have been challenges to it (I would guess there have), but I'm interested in your opinion. |
Lydia
Supporter
Username: Lydial
Post Number: 1937
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, June 8, 2006 - 5:06 pm: |
|
Quick aside - Did anyone catch Bill Bennett on The Daily Show arguing (poorly) with Jon Stewart against gay marriage?
Rastro and Greenetree - very well said.
|
TomR
Citizen
Username: Tomr
Post Number: 1149
Registered: 6-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, June 8, 2006 - 6:35 pm: |
|
Rastro,
While we may, today, consider it abhorrent to deny a man and a woman the ability to marry because of their differing race, I don't think that was how we thought when Loving was decided. (Does anybody else see the irony in the name of that case, or is it just me)?
While many, if not most, Mapplewoodians might find it abhorrent, today, that two men are not permitted to marry, that fact that New Jersey doesn't permit it, tells me that the people of the State of New Jersey are O'Tay with e way things are.
Looking nationwide, New Jersey is in the minority in legally acknowledging dosmestic partnerships, and it my recollection that the surveys indicate most U.S. residents don't want same sex marriage.
I don't know what the majority's reason is; but presume for a moment that they don't want same sex marriage because they believe in the "scantity of marriage" or believe that "it just ain't natural".
They have to be convinced. Nobody can demand that they just change their mind because Maplewoodians, or the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts sees the issue differently. (Its that whole thing about the only way to counter "bad" free speech, is more free speech).
Are they wrong, or are we? I dunno. But if we want something, politically, we have to do something to achieve that political goal. I don't think that marching in the park with rainbow banners does much to convince the boys in Trenton. Put a bunch of same sex marriage advocates in the Assembly, maybe the others will fall into line, if only to keep their own seats in what they see as the rising tide. (Legislators would NEVER vote in a certain manner only to hold on to their seats; would they)?
You suggest that there is some degree of moral equivalence between smae sex marriage and interracial marriage. As I intimated above, I don't think the "morality" argument went real far at the time that Loving was decided. Common morals are determined by the majority; and the majority don't want same sex marriage. Again, you gotta convince the majority that democracy, as we know it, will not come to an end if Jim and Bob marry.
My comment on speciousness and disingenuity should have been tied more tightly to the Loving decision or the legal aspect of my above comments. (Hey, I'm not getting paid for this. Why proof read it)?
Regarding the legality of the federal DOMA; I have to admit that I've found little sound authority on the extent of Congress' power under Article IV of our Constitution; and even less on the resolution of any conflicts between Article IV and other provisions.
That being said; the Fourteenth Amendment is more specific in its wording, as well as its intended, and its historical, application. And after all, it was adopted later; and the smart dead guys must have known what they were doing. If the Fourteenth abrogates the power of Congress under Article IV, it must have been what the smart dead guys wanted. (Just think of what Amendments XIII, XIV and XV did to Article I).
The bad news, yes the bad news! (Why do lawyers always get to the bad news just when you were starting to feel O'Tay).
That equal protection thing runs into a BIG road block with a SCOTUS decision.
Yes Virginia, the government CAN treat similarly situated persons in a disparate manner in certain circumstances.
Rastro, thanks for the questions. Keep me thinking. I've beem working on this one for a few years now and my friends and family are pretty tired. Its tough to extend the thought process without exercise.
Further, the scrivner sayeth not.
TomR |
Lydia
Supporter
Username: Lydial
Post Number: 1942
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, June 8, 2006 - 8:13 pm: |
|
TomR -
Quote:Looking nationwide, New Jersey is in the minority in legally acknowledging dosmestic partnerships, and it my recollection that the surveys indicate most U.S. residents don't want same sex marriage.
It wasn't so far back in history that most U.S. residents didn't want women to vote. Or black people to vote.
Why should anyone object to 2 adults jumping the broom, taking the vows, or pledging to love forever and ever?
Who cares what most US residents "want"? People are people. Some people are attracted to the opposite sex, some to the same.
Everyone wants to snuggle and come home to a loved one - it's ridiculous to deny anyone who wants to marry as somehow unworthy of the same rights.
|
S.L.K.s. Ghost
Citizen
Username: Scrotisloknows
Post Number: 1639
Registered: 10-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, June 8, 2006 - 8:46 pm: |
|
Rastro/TomR,
Thanks for reeling in this debate in and for speaking so much eloquesntly about it than I. I use to be able to do the same in the past and can guess what happened to it. But that is a different story that I don't wish to divulge at the moment.
Lydia,
I am guessing in the not too far future Gays will be able to marry. For now I am not arguing they can't and believe they should be able to but I also think GM proponents took this issue in the totally wrong direction.
You must remember that love is indeed an ingredient of marriage but the law does not look at it that way, or at least does not consider love to be a primary reason for marriage. Obviously to the law, marriage is a legally binding contract between two people. YOu could also say a business contract. Since the dawn of time this business contract was between a man and a woman. If you would like it to incorporate same sex marriage then it has to be changed. But it is not the COURTS responsibility to change it since they do not make law. Legislatures do.
When you look at it this way then maybe you and others can understand why this a much larger issue to work out then you and others are making it out to be.
-SLK
|
James
Citizen
Username: Gymtagart
Post Number: 16
Registered: 11-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, June 8, 2006 - 10:29 pm: |
|
mjf,
"...there is obviously much you dont know. Let me give you a hand"
Please feel free to join Foj in the education room.
The vote was about a proceedual matter requiring the approval of either 3/5's of the senators present and voting, or maybe, an absolute 60 votes. I dont think the rules call for an absolute 60.
Foj said that "Before the vote Frist claimed he had a majority, turns out he didnt, he only had 49 votes."
He didn't say that Frist didn't get the votes needed. He didn't say that Frist didn't didn't get the 60 votes required. And he certainly didn't say that Frist didn't get the 2/3 vote you think was in play.
49 out of 97 is a majority.
If he hadn't been so condescending in the past, I wouldnt have mentioned it. But a lot of people seem to aggree that he needs an attitude check
/discus/messages/26018/117816.html?1149806880
Thats the thread where the first quote came from.
The education room convenes at 8:30 am.
|
Rastro
Citizen
Username: Rastro
Post Number: 3341
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Friday, June 9, 2006 - 9:29 am: |
|
SLK, can you identify another type of contract that is legally tied to a genetic factor of the participants?
Reducing marriage to a contract does neither side of the debate any good (even though I did it just a few posts ago). |
Duncan
Supporter
Username: Duncanrogers
Post Number: 6498
Registered: 12-2001
| | Posted on Friday, June 9, 2006 - 10:07 am: |
|
Since the dawn of time?? Were you around then?
Quote:Could this lead eventually to the legalization and societal ratification of incest and group marriage? If gender roles are arbitary and socially constructed by the oppressive patriarchic hegemony, should marriage be limited to just two persons? Can't 3 men (or women) love each other? Can't 4? Or 5?
And if you folks can't see the similarities between this •••••••• now as it pertains to GM and the historic similarity to inter-racial marriage, then there is no helping you. The slippery slope argument has been used for everything from 3/5 human to gay marriage. I suspect it will continue as more issues arise that people are afraid of, because it really is fear that makes someone say something as idiotic as the above.
|
S.L.K.s. Ghost
Citizen
Username: Scrotisloknows
Post Number: 1647
Registered: 10-2005
| | Posted on Friday, June 9, 2006 - 11:57 am: |
|
Duncan/Rastro-
Marriage was developed to promote procreation and societal stability. At least GM will achieve half of this...
And Duncan, again, I am not saying Gays should not be allowed to get married. I am just saying they need a different angle in order to achieve their goal. Their current marketing strategy is not going to well.
-SLK |
3ringale
Citizen
Username: Threeringale
Post Number: 242
Registered: 1-2006
| | Posted on Friday, June 9, 2006 - 1:14 pm: |
|
Duncan said:
The slippery slope argument has been used for everything from 3/5 human to gay marriage.
I haven't been around since the dawn of time and I am certainly not a paragon of juristic erudition. If the "3/5 human" reference is to Article I, Section 2 of the Constitution, I fail to see any slope, slippery or otherwise. I thought it was a compromise pertaining to the apportionment of representation for the House. The Southern states had more slaves and wanted to count them 100% to get more Congressmen, (a scary thought, eh?). The Northern states had fewer slaves and didn't want to count them at all. The 3/5 provision was more of a political compromise than a metaphysical edict.
The only opinion I have heard equating same-sex marriage with incest, polygamy and group marriage was from Ron Kuby on his radio program. (I can't stand Kuby or Sliwa alone, but the whole seems to be somehow greater than the sum of the parts.)
Someone called in and said that if same-sex marriage was legal, we would have to recognize a right to incest, polygamy, etc. Kuby surprised me by agreeing with the caller, but he then shrugged it off by saying no one wanted to do those other things. What a relief! The interesting thing is that Kuby is not: a-idiotic, b-a member of the religious right, or c-a dweller in a trailer park. But he is an honest leftist, which is a rarity these days.
Cheers
|
Hoops
Citizen
Username: Hoops
Post Number: 1443
Registered: 10-2004
| | Posted on Friday, June 9, 2006 - 1:28 pm: |
|
Quote:But he is an honest leftist, which is a rarity these days.
what do you mean by that? |
Lydia
Supporter
Username: Lydial
Post Number: 1947
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Friday, June 9, 2006 - 1:42 pm: |
|
3ringal -
I doubt Ron Kuby would agree that gay marriage and incest have any relationship.
Group marriage and polygamy - yes. Actually there's an interesting article in this month's Advocate about group marriages among gay men.
For the record, I think group marriages should also be legalized.
|
3ringale
Citizen
Username: Threeringale
Post Number: 243
Registered: 1-2006
| | Posted on Saturday, June 10, 2006 - 8:07 am: |
|
Hoops,
I mean that Kuby is not a politician, holding his finger to the wind. He states his views clearly and doesn't shrink from their implications. Politicians, of whatever stripe, seem to obfuscate and trim the sharp edges off of their views. I guess this has something to do with winning votes.
Lydia,
I don't think that Kuby was saying that there was some necessary realtionship between same-sex marriage and incest. If I heard him right, he was saying that if a constitutional right to same-sex marriage was recognized, there could be no constitutional barriers to incest, polygamy, group marriage, etc. I take it as a Pandora's-box type of argument. He did say that he did not think it would become a major issue.
I commend your forthrightness in advocating the legalization of group marriage, but I respectfully disagree. Maybe I'll look for the article you mentioned online, but I doubt that I will be persuaded.
Cheers |
anon
Supporter
Username: Anon
Post Number: 2772
Registered: 6-2002
| | Posted on Saturday, June 10, 2006 - 10:31 am: |
|
Lydia. Group marraige. I'll keep that thought in my mind all day!  |
Nancy - LibraryLady
Supporter
Username: Librarylady
Post Number: 3560
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Saturday, June 10, 2006 - 10:39 am: |
|
Actually I have a acquaintance involved in a group marriage (actually to think of it two acquaintances) and they are all well respected, self-supporting competent adults who cause no proplems and live normal (?) everyday lives. I think the problem comes in with regard to taxes, social security benefits, parental rights,etc but my philososphy is as long as they don't bother me, I ain't gonna bother them. I agree with you Lydia. |
greenetree
Supporter
Username: Greenetree
Post Number: 8001
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Saturday, June 10, 2006 - 11:48 am: |
|
I had friends who got into a group marriage a few years ago. They were all consenting adults, so it was their right. One original couple met one triple. But, all 5 weren't temperamentally suited to be together. The wife in the original couple ended up married to one of the husbands in the triple & they ended up back as a couple.
I'd think it would be very hard to find multiple folks to have a working marriage like that (two is hard enough). Can you imagine the logistics of working out that pre-nup? But, it shouldn't be illegal. |
Lydia
Supporter
Username: Lydial
Post Number: 1950
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Saturday, June 10, 2006 - 12:39 pm: |
|
3ringale,
Quote:there could be no constitutional barriers to incest, polygamy, group marriage, etc. )
It's the incest part that bothers me. Incest between a parent and child? Between adult children? Between cousins? It's a pretty broad catagory, and a sexual situation that usually (not sure, but I have a hunch) isn't consentual among all involved parties.
Again, I can't think of any compelling reasons why group marriage should be illegal. Although LibraryLady brings up a good question with the social security benefits.
|
3ringale
Citizen
Username: Threeringale
Post Number: 244
Registered: 1-2006
| | Posted on Saturday, June 10, 2006 - 6:08 pm: |
|
Lydia,
I suppose that incest is a pretty broad category and that it is not always consensual, but if you erase the line that restricts marriage to one man and woman, who knows what you will come up with. All societies have prerequisite structural boundaries for marriage, (sex, age, number, degree of consanguinity). Successful societies have by and large confined it to one man and woman with limited, if any consanguinity. History doesn't turn on a dime. Neither does nature. Some societies have permitted polygamy, and I suppose polyandry as well. I would think that those practices don't work out in the long run.
It seems that most people on MOL who support same-sex marriage see it as a civil rights issue, akin to segregated drinking fountains. I just don't see it in that light. It defies common sense and is, as one of my favorite writers puts it, a "metaphysical self-contradiction". A man can no more marry a man than he can marry his dog or his car. I suppose this will sound very hateful and bigoted to some ears, but I seriously doubt that I will change my mind.
Cheers |
anon
Supporter
Username: Anon
Post Number: 2777
Registered: 6-2002
| | Posted on Saturday, June 10, 2006 - 6:15 pm: |
|
Does not necessarily sound hateful and bigoted but it does sound illogical.
Two men can recite marraige vows just as can a man and woman. Two men can vow to love and honor. A car can't. A dog can't |
Lydia
Supporter
Username: Lydial
Post Number: 1954
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Saturday, June 10, 2006 - 7:25 pm: |
|
3ringale,
What Anon said.
The whole "if we allow same sex couples to marry it might lead to bestiality" argument is an insane leap of logic.
For one, dogs don't have thumbs so they can't sign pre-nups.
For two, if we are to learn anything from "The Omen" - human children born to dogs are the Anti-Christ and kill their human mothers - like who needs that?
Marriage between consenting human beings should be legal. I have yet to hear any compelling argument from you against same-sex marriage besides what you think it will lead to.
|
TomR
Citizen
Username: Tomr
Post Number: 1152
Registered: 6-2001
| | Posted on Saturday, June 10, 2006 - 10:11 pm: |
|
Nancy,
Where do you forsee a problem "...with regard to taxes, social security benefits, parental rights,etc ..."?
What might be the items included within etc.?
TomR |
3ringale
Citizen
Username: Threeringale
Post Number: 246
Registered: 1-2006
| | Posted on Sunday, June 11, 2006 - 9:48 am: |
|
anon said:
Two men can recite marraige vows just as can a man and woman.
So can 2 six-year old children, or a six-year old and a twenty-six-year old, or a brother and sister. Does that make it legit?
Lydia,
I have tried, in a clumsy way, to make a Burkean, traditionalist case against same-sex marriage. I don't think that any institution or practice that has existed for such a long time, should be transformed in such a radical way, in such a short time, if it should be changed at all. I have a copy of the New Shorter Oxford English Dictionary published in 1993. It defines marriage as being between 1 man and 1 woman. Is this authoritative in any way? Not really. Was it an unexceptionable statement in 1993? Probably. Has OUP since succumbed to the PC zeitgeist and revised their definition? I don't know. My point is that a subject that was not really on the radar screen of public discourse as recently as 13 years ago seems to have swept the field and become a default position. How did this happen? I'm still thinking about it. I guess you will say it's an idea whose time has come.
Let me just try a different angle, if you will bear with me. What if any restrictions (sex, number, age, consanguinity) would you impose on prospective marriage partners, and why would you impose them, if you had the power to do so? I'd be interested in your answer.
Finally, note that I have not said that legalization of same-sex marriage will not happen. I have said that it should not happen. I don't have a lot of confidence in the political process.
Cheers |
S.L.K.s. Ghost
Citizen
Username: Scrotisloknows
Post Number: 1664
Registered: 10-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, June 11, 2006 - 1:31 pm: |
|
Earth to Pro GMers:
Like most things, marriage is bound by law. In order for a man to marry a man, a woman to marry a woman the law needs to be changed. In order to change the laws the legislative branch must take proper measures.
That's how it works. To arbitraily (sp) change laws to achieve a goal, however just it is, only weakens the system...
Ta da...
-SLK
|
Lydia
Supporter
Username: Lydial
Post Number: 1956
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Sunday, June 11, 2006 - 7:22 pm: |
|
3ringale -
Your argument it still wacky - 6-year-old's can't marry for the same reason they can't buy a house - they're minors, they can't enter into any contracts without a guardian.
Quote:What if any restrictions (sex, number, age, consanguinity) would you impose on prospective marriage partners, and why would you impose them, if you had the power to do so? I'd be interested in your answer.
I wouldn't make many restrictions on prospective marriage partners - have to be 16 years or older, and both partners would have to be willing to marry each other.
If I could offer advice to people getting married, I'd caution against marrying anyone you've known for less then a year, has alcohol or drug issues, is in and out of jail, is cruel to animals/people or the environment, or has any habits that they think they can change rather than live with.
But the state doesn't put restrictions on hetero marriage - A woman with children can marry a convicted child molester - that is, as long as he's male.
2 law-abiding, tax-paying, upstanding people who've been together for 50 years STILL can't get married if they're same sex.
Marriage is about a lot of things - love, finances, religion, raising children, sexual compatibility - it's all part of the human condition, and I think the laws should be changed to allow same-sex marriage as well as opposite-sex marriage.
|
3ringale
Citizen
Username: Threeringale
Post Number: 247
Registered: 1-2006
| | Posted on Sunday, June 11, 2006 - 8:14 pm: |
|
Lydia,
I'm glad that we can agree on something. 16 seems a little young, but at least you have some prerequisite. Your argument about a convicted molester being permitted to marry a woman with children is impressive. I imagine it doesn't happen very often, but I guess it could. My solution would be to ensure that no convicted molester would ever be in a position to marry.
It's true that six year olds can't marry in this country, but I think there have been (and are?) societies that betroth children at an early age and sometimes marry them off as early as 8 or 9. This might pose a dilemma for a multiculturalist. I am no expert, but I think there are groups in the US like NAMBLA that advocate repeal of age-of-consent laws. This seems unlikely to ever happen, but if it did, it could have an impact on marriage laws. This is beyond the pale to me and I would be opposed, and I'm sure you would be also.
I don't think I will ever see same-sex marriage as a legitimate option for society, but I appreciate your candor and honesty.
Cheers
Cheers |
Lydia
Supporter
Username: Lydial
Post Number: 1958
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Sunday, June 11, 2006 - 8:42 pm: |
|
3ringale -
So we disagree, and I don't think either of us has changed our opinions, but it's been refreshing to have this discussion with you without either of us veering away from the debate and w/out personal attacks.
I appreciate your candor and honesty too -
Nice talking with you - really.
|
|
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page