Why Is Gay Marriage Wrong? - 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 04-14-2008, 10:28 AM   #76
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Tempe, Az USA
Posts: 12,856
Local Time: 01:54 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by yolland

But this is simply wrong. Marriage based on romantic love between two individuals freely choosing one another as spouses is a quite recent and distinctly Western innovation. In Biblical times (and for centuries afterwards) marriages were arranged by parents, usually in the couple's early teen years if not before, primarily on the basis of socioeconomic considerations and of course with the woman being legally conceived of as property to be transferred from father to husband. The point was to ensure that young people assumed the expected responsibilities of adults, which included (for women) bearing and caring for children and (for men) fathering children and providing for them and one's wife/wives, while creating socially and economically useful enhanced ties between their families of birth in the process. That's not to say that the emotion we now call 'falling in love' was unknown, or that the occasional lucky couple didn't get to marry based on that thanks to sympathetic parents, or that especial tenderness and compassion towards one's spouse weren't important moral ideals; but "consummating" romantic love and honoring it as the basis for lifelong personal commitment wasn't at all the point.

We're lucky enough today to enjoy that privilege (or more correctly, heterosexuals are), so already we've made at least one radical readjustment to the definition. Actually, make that four--because now marriages require the imprimatur of the state, in fact they may be granted directly by the state; because women are now legally equal parties to their spouses; and because effective contraception is now widely available and the state doesn't take a couple's intention to have children (or not) into account when bestowing 'married' status. According to the (US) Census Bureau, as of 2006, 27% of all married couples under 50 had no children--not exactly a typical-of-the-last-6000-years statistic. (Adoption, of course, always was and still is a legally available option for infertile married couples.)

It doesn't seem that we (heterosexuals) have any problems with these changes to the definition of marriage or the expectations placed on married couples when they're made for our benefit. For all the huffing about 'natural order' and 'scripture says,' we don't seem to mind radically redefining the expectations of 6000 years ago where heterosexuals' love lives are concerned. So why the squeamishness about honoring gay couples' love and, where applicable, desires to create families through adoption? Why do we claim for ourselves the legal right to choose whether and whom to marry, and whether or not to have children, and we're fine with those 'little' modifications, but then when it comes to gay couples, it's conveniently all-or-nothing--and since they can't manage the children-through-intercourse part, no dice? I see nothing honorable or worthy in this.
You asked why people get "married". In my view the other items you listed are why some people co-habitate.

The ppl that want a legal contract want one so they don't appear to be shacking up.

I disagree, there's no squiminess.

Let's try this example:

If I have Harley parked in my garage because I desired a motorcycle it would be accepted that I have a mortorcycle.

Well say if a fellow named Demetre' moves in across the alley from me and says he has a motorcycle too and would like to show me his and I agree and then he whips out a Vespa Moped and I try to explain to my new friend that a Vespa Moped isn't quite a "motorcycle" but very similar and you can enjoy the same benifits there shouldn't be an issue, and I think he wouldn't have a fit aand want to write Oxford, Webster's or Meramim dictionary services to demand a change in the meaning of the word "motorcycle", ok?

Illustrations:

Motorcycle:


Not a motorcycle:



Marriage:



Civil Union or Male Matrimony:




This whole thread is a facacta idea.

<>
__________________

__________________
diamond is offline  
Old 04-14-2008, 10:31 AM   #77
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Tempe, Az USA
Posts: 12,856
Local Time: 01:54 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by A_Wanderer
Why don't you do something conservative... cut back the marriage benefits to avoid scams.

Let's not be an interloper, we're making real progress here my friendly lad from Oz.

<>
__________________

__________________
diamond is offline  
Old 04-14-2008, 10:34 AM   #78
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Tempe, Az USA
Posts: 12,856
Local Time: 01:54 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by MrsSpringsteen


Really? So sexless marriages (for whatever reason-physical, psychological) are invalid,.
shrillness aside, I listed the "main" reason.

<>
__________________
diamond is offline  
Old 04-14-2008, 10:37 AM   #79
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Tempe, Az USA
Posts: 12,856
Local Time: 01:54 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar


You couldn't be more wrong...

Show me where this definition exists outside of FYM...
Genesis 2:24
__________________
diamond is offline  
Old 04-14-2008, 10:41 AM   #80
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Tempe, Az USA
Posts: 12,856
Local Time: 01:54 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by A_Wanderer
.

Although I would love to know how this one man for one woman argument for marriage is getting justified by somebody who's randy prophet had a conveniently sexy revelation for polygamy; I understand that the church changed it's position but that really undercuts those slights that science is useless because it doesn't give absolute truth.


For the fundementalists that insist on practicing who are excommunicated it-it should be called
something other than marriage.

<>
__________________
diamond is offline  
Old 04-14-2008, 10:52 AM   #81
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,494
Local Time: 03:54 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by diamond


This whole thread is a facacta idea.

<>


your whole premise is based in ignorance and prejudice.

you're arguing that at it's core, at it's essence, in it's very definition, that heterosexuality is always superior to homosexuality.

it doesn't matter what Britney Spears does or how many marriages Elizabeth Taylor has, each and every marriage a straight person has is going to be superior to the single marriage a lesbian couple has that lasts 35 years.

truly, you are judging people by their form, and not their content.

you, sir, are, yes, a bigot.

which is hilarious, in so many ways. i stand here and defend you and your religion from the protestant fundies, and then you turn around and use the very arguments they put upon you -- it's not *real* -- to use against other people?
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 04-14-2008, 11:10 AM   #82
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Tempe, Az USA
Posts: 12,856
Local Time: 01:54 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511




your whole premise is based in ignorance and prejudice.

you're arguing that at it's core, at it's essence, in it's very definition, that heterosexuality is always superior to homosexuality.

it doesn't matter what Britney Spears does or how many marriages Elizabeth Taylor has, each and every marriage a straight person has is going to be superior to the single marriage a lesbian couple has that lasts 35 years.

truly, you are judging people by their form, and not their content.

you, sir, are, yes, a bigot.

which is hilarious, in so many ways. i stand here and defend you and your religion from the protestant fundies, and then you turn around and use the very arguments they put upon you -- it's not *real* -- to use against other people?
i have gay friends here, in my church and outside of my church.

i'm not known as a bigot by them.

<>
__________________
diamond is offline  
Old 04-14-2008, 11:47 AM   #83
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,494
Local Time: 03:54 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by diamond


i have gay friends here, in my church and outside of my church.

i'm not known as a bigot by them.

<>



the arguments you put forth against gay marriage are rooted in bigotry.

that at all times, in all ways, one form of relationship is by definition superior to the other.

would it not be bigoted of me to say that all white/white relationships are better at all times than any mixed race relationship?
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 04-14-2008, 11:59 AM   #84
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,685
Local Time: 02:54 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by diamond


Genesis 2:24
That passage says nothing about, the reason people get married is to have sex, which is basically what your definition says.
__________________
BVS is offline  
Old 04-14-2008, 12:18 PM   #85
Registered User
 
acrobatique's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 68
Local Time: 03:54 AM
If you guys wanted a secular debate, why do you insist on addressing someone who is so clearly rooted in a theological opinion? Let him be, you're arguing about something that some men wrote thousands of years ago. Even if the bible did out and out condemn it, who cares?

My questions on page 5 are more philosophical/existential than anything but to me that discussion would be infinitely more interesting than bickering about scriptural interpretation...
__________________
acrobatique is offline  
Old 04-14-2008, 12:49 PM   #86
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,494
Local Time: 03:54 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by acrobatique
Just a question on "choice":

Do people posting here - gay or straight - believe that it is possible for a straight person to enjoy gay sex, yet still consider themselves "heterosexual" in terms of not being romantically attracted to the same sex? Ie, they could not date or be overly attracted to the same sex in a romantic or relationship sense, but in the throes of passion enjoy the lesbian/gay sex act?

Or do they feel that person is 'closeted' or 'in denial'?



it's a complex thing, and a mistake i think you're making is that homosexuality is only about sex. the definition of being homosexual is when you are physically and emotionally attracted to someone of the same sex. there are people who are able to form these kinds of sexual and emotional attachments with both genders, and they are probably best described as bisexuals. there are gay people who are "able" to have sex with straight people, and vice versa, but the core of sexual orientation goes far beyond being able to use another body for sexual gratification.

there is some suspicion, often with gay people, towards those who claim bisexuality, that it's a way to sort of be gay without having to deal with some of the social consequences of being gay. like a guy who says that he's not gay, he just likes to perform oral sex on other men. it may well be that he doesn't identify as gay, but that probably does mean that he's not straight either.

these identities are political and contested, and so in the end it's best to let each individual decide what suits them best. i think you'll find that most people fall comfortably into either gay/straight, and despite some transgressions (usually while one is younger), the orientation is lived out in a very complete, consistent way, in a way that feels natural to that person.



Quote:
Here's another question: if we call all unions 'marriage', can a person marry both a man and a woman? Have a three-part marriage? Why or why not? What difference does it make?

but we're not calling all unions marriage. we're calling the union between two men and two women a marriage. if you want to argue that polygamist marriages should be legal, by all means, go ahead and do so. just don't lump that in with marriage equality. polygamy has been made illegal for reasons that have nothing at all to do with gay people. argue polygamy on it's own merits, don't be lazy and assume that just because now gay people can get married, i can marry my pet rock.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 04-14-2008, 12:54 PM   #87
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,494
Local Time: 03:54 AM
[q]Gay couples face higher tax bills


MOUNT LAUREL, New Jersey (AP) -- For gay couples, the April 15 tax filing deadline can be a reminder of the disparities they face, even in a nation that is becoming more accepting of same-sex couples.

Gay couples often pay higher taxes because they don't get the federal tax benefits that go with marriage. And for couples in state-sanctioned domestic partnerships, civil unions or same-sex marriages, filing federal income taxes can involve doing three sets of paperwork instead of one.

"It's a significant financial disability," said Beth Asaro, who last year entered into one of New Jersey's first legally recognized civil unions.

While the debate over government recognition of gay marriage is a political hot-button with arguments about morality, civil rights and tradition, the tax issue is a mostly practical one for hundreds of thousands of same-sex couples.

Most states ban gay marriage and don't recognize same-sex unions in any way. Only in Massachusetts can gay couples legally marry. Since 1997, nine other states and Washington D.C. started offering civil unions or domestic partnerships that give some or all the legal protections of marriage.

Those protections include allowing gay couples to file state taxes jointly -- and potentially save them money. But they can also make tax filing more complicated for the couples.

That's because the state protections do not help with federal taxes. Under the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, the government defines marriage as being allowed only between a man and a woman.

"You're running one household," said John Traier, a partner in the Butler, New Jersey, accounting firm Hammond & Traier. "But the federal government and a lot of states treat them as two households."

The same is true for straight unmarried straight couples who are living together.

There are two main effects of the different treatment under federal law.

One is the tax rate. Take two couples where one partner has a taxable income of $20,000 and the other makes $40,000. If they can file their federal taxes jointly, the tax bill would be $8,217.50. Filing separately, the combined bill would be $9,032.50 -- more than $800 higher.

Another disparity comes with the federal government's treatment of employer-provided health insurance, which also affects unmarried heterosexual couples.

For example, Dan Jessup is a project manager at JPMorgan Chase in Indiana. His partner, Bob Chenoweth, is self-employed, running two businesses out of the couple's Mooresville, Indiana, home. So Chenoweth gets health insurance through Chase.

But Jessup is required to count the company's cost of his partner's benefits as additional income for tax purposes.

State and federal taxes on those benefits cost about $1,800 per year, Jessup said.

"I certainly think about it every payday," when the extra withholding is taken from his paycheck, he said. "If you think about 10 years, $18,000 is a lot of money. That could buy me a pretty nice car."

The tax on benefits for domestic partners also applies to employers. Companies including Chase are endorsing the Human Rights Campaign's push for a bill that would end the tax on health plan benefits for people who are neither the spouse nor legal dependent of the employee. Versions of the bill have been introduced in Congress in the last three sessions, but have never moved out of committee.

A government analysis estimated the bill would cost about $10 billion in lost federal tax revenue over 10 years. Advocates for the bill say it would create savings elsewhere, including reducing the Medicaid rolls.

Ryan Ellis, the tax policy director for Americans for Tax Reform, said his group supports the concept, but not the specific language of the bill, because it does not propose increasing how much domestic partners could put into health savings accounts.

It's not just the higher bills that can be frustrating for same-sex taxpayers; it's also the process of filing taxes, particularly in states that offer some joint benefits to gay couples.

"I don't want to say it's chaotic, but it's very difficult for a lot of reasons," said Traier, the accountant who is in a civil union partnership himself.

In New Jersey and the other states where same-sex unions are formally recognized, couples can file their state taxes jointly, but they must file their federal tax returns as individuals.

That means doing income calculations twice. Many tax programs such as Intuit's TurboTax are set up to deal with that extra math.

But there are other issues where even up-to-date software might not solve.

These issues also affect unmarried straight couples.

For instance, couples with children must decide which partner gets to claim them as dependents for tax purposes on federal returns and returns in states that don't recognize same-sex unions. Similarly, couples who own homes together have to sort out how much of the mortgage interest payments each partner gets to use as a deduction, said Lara Schwartz, the Human Rights Campaign legal director.

"If you are not a different sex," from your partner, Schwartz said, "you are strangers, basically, under federal law."[/q]
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 04-14-2008, 01:08 PM   #88
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Tempe, Az USA
Posts: 12,856
Local Time: 01:54 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511





.

would it not be bigoted of me to say that all white/white relationships are better at all times than any mixed race relationship?
yes, and i don't think ppl of a different skin pigmentation should be used to advance an agenda.

<>
__________________
diamond is offline  
Old 04-14-2008, 01:09 PM   #89
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Tempe, Az USA
Posts: 12,856
Local Time: 01:54 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar


That passage says nothing about, the reason people get married is to have sex, which is basically what your definition says.

it's one of the main reasons, religious and personal values are another.

btw what do you think

"one flesh" means in that verse ?

I think it could mean touching pees pees w your new spouse.


<>
__________________
diamond is offline  
Old 04-14-2008, 01:13 PM   #90
She's the One
 
martha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Orange County and all over the goddamn place
Posts: 42,335
Local Time: 12:54 AM
So, to recap again:

1. Dictionary definitions is it.

That's all anybody has to defend a bigoted stand against equal protection and access.

Well done.
__________________

__________________
martha 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 03:54 AM.


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