Religious Fanatics and those who oppose them running our country PLEASE POST HERE - Page 6 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 11-03-2004, 06:17 PM   #76
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 05:27 PM
"State's rights"

the bottom line is States handle rights poorly


it is considered code for "status quo"

it was the "watch cry" of the Southern segregationist.
__________________

__________________
deep is offline  
Old 11-03-2004, 06:24 PM   #77
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,493
Local Time: 08:27 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by speedracer


First, if you replace "tradition" by "the will of the people", your last sentence is a lot more meaningful.

Second, if you argue that gay marriage is a civil right, you pretty much have to argue that three-way marriages and incestuous marriages are civil rights as well. Hell, you might even have to argue that the entire notion of conferring benefits on married couples is discriminatory and should be abolished.

As it is, the people just happen to pick and choose which of these arrangements they wish to sanction. The way to get gay marriage legalized is not to proclaim it as an unalienable right and have it imposed by the courts; it is to convince the people that it is a good thing.
will of the people? well, we can first allude to anti-miscegenation laws that were very much the will of the people as recently as 1968. they weren't right then, they aren't right now. when it comes to minority rights, the majority has historically been an unreliable moral guide.

your second point is absurd. gay people aren't asking for the right to mary anyone, just the right to marry someone. and, yes, the notion of conferring benefits on married couples IS discriminatory because at least 5% of the population is genetically inequipped to enter into an honest heterosexual marriage (though gay people get married all the time ... Liza Minelli and David Guest, anyone?). all straight people have the option of getting married, and they get benefits should they choose to do so. gay people are not even given that option.

i somewhat agree with your last point. yes, convincing people that it is a good thing is the best way to go. and those numbers are changing. the national exit polls showed that 27 percent support marriage rights, 37 percent support civil unions and only 35 percent want to keep gay couples from having any rights at all.

however, as we have seen in MA and VT, sometimes imposing something on the people, and the slow but sure realization the sky won't fall when gay people do get married, is often what it takes. all those who stood for marriage equality in MA were re-elected last night.
__________________

__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 11-03-2004, 06:29 PM   #78
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
speedracer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: MD
Posts: 7,573
Local Time: 08:27 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511


your second point is absurd. gay people aren't asking for the right to mary anyone, just the right to marry someone. and, yes, the notion of conferring benefits on married couples IS discriminatory because at least 5% of the population is genetically inequipped to enter into an honest heterosexual marriage (though gay people get married all the time ... Liza Minelli and David Guest, anyone?). all straight people have the option of getting married, and they get benefits should they choose to do so. gay people are not even given that option.
Tell me again why you don't think incestuous relationships or threesomes should be sanctioned by the state? Who decides that these relationships are "unnatural"? Dismissing this prospect as "absurd" is insufficient.

I bet there are such people who want to get married and feel as if they are being discriminated against. (Apologies for ending the previous sentence with a preposition.)
__________________
speedracer is offline  
Old 11-03-2004, 06:31 PM   #79
MacPhisto's serving wench
 
The_Sweetest_Thing's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Inside a bubble
Posts: 3,773
Local Time: 08:27 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by speedracer

Second, if you argue that gay marriage is a civil right, you pretty much have to argue that three-way marriages and incestuous marriages are civil rights as well. Hell, you might even have to argue that the entire notion of conferring benefits on married couples is discriminatory and should be abolished.
Not necessarily--three way marriages and incestuous marriages aren't based on sexual preference--a biological feature. You assume that by allowing homosexual marriages we open the door for three way marriages, then four way...where do we stop? I highly doubt that would ever be a legitimate concern. Heck, the demand for three way marriages isn't a pressing concern; but the fact that people are leaving the states to enter countries where it is allowed is disturbing; it illustartes that this IS a big problem and a discriminatory practice against a (rising) minority group.

I have a relative who has no problem with homosexual marriages, except in fact, the word 'marriage' itself. In her eyes, 'marriage' is a sacrament. If the church chooses not to accept homosexual marriages, that is their decision. However, if homosexuals wish to join together by the state, this is acceptable--however, not being accepted by the church, it could never be a blesseed sacrament, only a 'union' or a 'joining.'
__________________
The_Sweetest_Thing is offline  
Old 11-03-2004, 06:39 PM   #80
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
speedracer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: MD
Posts: 7,573
Local Time: 08:27 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by The_Sweetest_Thing


Not necessarily--three way marriages and incestuous marriages aren't based on sexual preference--a biological feature. You assume that by allowing homosexual marriages we open the door for three way marriages, then four way...where do we stop? I highly doubt that would ever be a legitimate concern.
And here I thought the institution of marriage was based upon a couple's desire to be joined forever instead of upon human biochemistry.

If even one incestuous couple or one threesome exists, and I'm willing to bet there does, then our gay-inclusive institution of marriage is still discriminatory.

The point is that any meaningful definition of "marriage" is going to be discriminatory in some fashion.
__________________
speedracer is offline  
Old 11-03-2004, 06:41 PM   #81
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
speedracer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: MD
Posts: 7,573
Local Time: 08:27 PM
(double post)
__________________
speedracer is offline  
Old 11-03-2004, 06:48 PM   #82
MacPhisto's serving wench
 
The_Sweetest_Thing's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Inside a bubble
Posts: 3,773
Local Time: 08:27 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by speedracer


And here I thought the institution of marriage was based upon a couple's desire to be joined forever instead of upon human biochemistry.

If even one incestuous couple or one threesome exists, and I'm willing to bet there does, then our gay-inclusive institution of marriage is still discriminatory.

The point is that any meaningful definition of "marriage" is going to be discriminatory in some fashion.
Right, but you and many others have made it out that this desire to be joined forever is simply sue to wanting of a tax break. My bringing up innate human functioning was to explain sexual preference--and why any union shouldn't discriminate against it because of so (akin to not allowing marriages or unions between any visible minority group--people cannot change their skin colour or race).

So you would propose that since other types of couples exist--threesomes, incestous--that we therefore outlaw all non-commontype marriages? is it safer this way to only allow a heterosexual union between two people? Is it easier to allow some groups and not others?

And it's different when the discrimination is occuring from within the church or within the state. I would argue that the church may have some basis, based on history, past precedent, and teaching. The state however, has no right interfering in such things.
__________________
The_Sweetest_Thing is offline  
Old 11-03-2004, 07:09 PM   #83
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
speedracer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: MD
Posts: 7,573
Local Time: 08:27 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by The_Sweetest_Thing


Right, but you and many others have made it out that this desire to be joined forever is simply sue to wanting of a tax break.
I have never said this anywhere. In fact, it doesn't really matter why a couple or threesome wants to be joined forever.

Quote:

My bringing up innate human functioning was to explain sexual preference--and why any union shouldn't discriminate against it because of so (akin to not allowing marriages or unions between any visible minority group--people cannot change their skin colour or race).
The flip side is that you are arguing that incestuous relationships and threesomes are unnatural, just as some opponents of gay marriage argue that gay relationships are unnatural. What evidence have you for this claim that no person "naturally" desires a sibling and that no person "naturally" desires to be in a threesome?

Quote:

So you would propose that since other types of couples exist--threesomes, incestous--that we therefore outlaw all non-commontype marriages? is it safer this way to only allow a heterosexual union between two people? Is it easier to allow some groups and not others?
Well, I personally favor gay marriage. But my point remains that the civil institution of marriage is a social construct, not a natural right. As such, it is regulated by the people, and the people will sanction whichever relationships they choose.

Quote:

And it's different when the discrimination is occuring from within the church or within the state. I would argue that the church may have some basis, based on history, past precedent, and teaching. The state however, has no right interfering in such things.
I don't know why you keep mentioning the church. None of my arguments have any religious basis.
__________________
speedracer is offline  
Old 11-03-2004, 07:29 PM   #84
MacPhisto's serving wench
 
The_Sweetest_Thing's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Inside a bubble
Posts: 3,773
Local Time: 08:27 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by speedracer
The flip side is that you are arguing that incestuous relationships and threesomes are unnatural, just as some opponents of gay marriage argue that gay relationships are unnatural. What evidence have you for this claim that no person "naturally" desires a sibling and that no person "naturally" desires to be in a threesome?
I'm not denying that these things naturally exist. I'm supporting gay marriages. I would however, draw the line at insectous marriages, as it therefore indirectly promotes sex, leading to genetic abnormalities, etc etc in chldiren. You know the deal.


Quote:
Originally posted by speedracer

Well, I personally favor gay marriage. But my point remains that marriage is a social construct, not a natural right. As such, it is regulated by the people.
But yes, it almost appears as if your stance supports only heterosexual marriages because it is the easiest to support, and because marriages of other types would require work, changing laws, etc. It IS regulated by the people--but shouldn't individual couples have the right to choose without interference from the state? (I know you haven't said they shouldn't, i'm simply bringing up a point here for those against same-sex marriages)

Quote:
Originally posted by speedracer
I don't know why you keep mentioning the church. None of my arguments have any religious basis.
Right, but you have mentioned marriage as a civil right and others here have mentioned the church and the separation of the church and state. My point is simply to allow the state to grant the right to individual couples to choose and for others to leave the church out of it.
__________________
The_Sweetest_Thing is offline  
Old 11-03-2004, 07:35 PM   #85
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
speedracer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: MD
Posts: 7,573
Local Time: 08:27 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by The_Sweetest_Thing


I'm not denying that these things naturally exist. I'm supporting gay marriages. I would however, draw the line at insectous marriages, as it therefore indirectly promotes sex, leading to genetic abnormalities, etc etc in chldiren. You know the deal.
What about incestuous relationships where one partner is sterile?

In the end, I think we all know the answer...because incest is gross.
__________________
speedracer is offline  
Old 11-03-2004, 07:37 PM   #86
MacPhisto's serving wench
 
The_Sweetest_Thing's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Inside a bubble
Posts: 3,773
Local Time: 08:27 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by speedracer


What about incestuous relationships where one partner is sterile?

In the end, I think we all know the answer...because incest is gross.
steritlity is often assumed, but anything can happen; thus i assume it would be outlawed, regardless. Not because you (or i ) think it's gross. As you've already stated, there are people out there who think it's acceptable.
__________________
The_Sweetest_Thing is offline  
Old 11-03-2004, 07:40 PM   #87
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
speedracer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: MD
Posts: 7,573
Local Time: 08:27 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by The_Sweetest_Thing


steritlity is often assumed, but anything can happen; thus i assume it would be outlawed, regardless. Not because you (or i ) think it's gross. As you've already stated, there are people out there who think it's acceptable.
If your case against incest is that it leads to genetic deformities in children, then why don't we outlaw marriages between non-incestuous couples who are at significant risk of giving birth to kids with severe birth defects?
__________________
speedracer is offline  
Old 11-03-2004, 07:43 PM   #88
MacPhisto's serving wench
 
The_Sweetest_Thing's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Inside a bubble
Posts: 3,773
Local Time: 08:27 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by speedracer


If your case against incest is that it leads to genetic deformities in children, then why don't we outlaw marriages between non-incestuous couples who are at significant risk of giving birth to kids with severe birth defects?
because many of these couples are unaware of passing on severe genetic defects to children. do we screen every single couple that *might* conceive a child to find out what risks they hold? or do we all carry cards with our full genetic complements on them and when we meet someone with whom we want to have sex with, compare cards and see what combinations of genes we can come up with?
__________________
The_Sweetest_Thing is offline  
Old 11-03-2004, 07:51 PM   #89
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
speedracer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: MD
Posts: 7,573
Local Time: 08:27 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by The_Sweetest_Thing


because many of these couples are unaware of passing on severe genetic defects to children. do we screen every single couple that *might* conceive a child to find out what risks they hold? or do we all carry cards with our full genetic complements on them and when we meet someone with whom we want to have sex with, compare cards and see what combinations of genes we can come up with?
Hmm. Might not be a bad idea...

If a couple wanted to marry, and both of them had given birth to children with similar birth defects, should we deny them the right to marry?

Or continuing the opposite line of argument, if two siblings wanted to marry and the woman had entered menopause, should we allow them to marry?

And heck, we haven't talked about polygamy yet.

I hope you see my point -- there isn't a strictly biological basis for determining the legitimacy of a marriage.
__________________
speedracer is offline  
Old 11-03-2004, 07:56 PM   #90
MacPhisto's serving wench
 
The_Sweetest_Thing's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Inside a bubble
Posts: 3,773
Local Time: 08:27 PM
I completely do...there can't be a strict biological basis for marriage.

But how can a state not allow a civil right to some and not others? And how can some people claim this is acceptable because this is the 'natural' way (or biblical way, etc).
__________________

__________________
The_Sweetest_Thing is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:27 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com