deep
Blue Crack Addict
diamond said:
civil union.
would you allow civil unions with
machines?
horses?
Don Imus and Rutgers University women's basketball team? (plural civil union)?
diamond said:
civil union.
deep said:
1-would you allow civil unions with
machines?
2-horses?
3-Don Imus and Rutgers University women's basketball team? (plural civil union)?
deep said:I think (hope) you were replying to Irvine
and not my simultaneous post?
diamond said:
1-no
2-no
3-no
dbs
I think its fine for a woman to stick a machine in her nether regions, I think its fine for people to be pleasured by robots, I think that marriage is a contract and as such requires consenting parties. When there is sentient AI with the rights of other beings then people should be allowed to marry robots/androids.diamond said:I think it's talking about humans marrying robots.
So, you guys think it ok for a human to marry a robot be it- a gay human, or a straight human?
dbs
BonoVoxSupastar said:
I love how you answer these, but you conveinently miss ....tough
Your beliefs have no sway over the application of the world marriage Big Love.diamond said:just don't call it marriage.
word,
dbs
diamond said:
A_Wanderer said:When there is sentient AI with the rights of other beings
then people should be allowed to marry robots/androids.
Irvine511 said:so, like, will these Civil Unions have all the rights of a Marriage?
and, if so, what's the hang-up over hte word?
Irvine511 said:so, like, will these Civil Unions have all the rights of a Marriage?
and, if so, what's the hang-up over hte word?
diamond said:
Nope, unless it was changed thru legislation legally, which one would ask the question-what's the difference?
A civil union would afford 2 human beings the right to co habitate legally, enjoy heatlh insurance, right of survivorship, alimony bennies if disolving the union etc-things like that.
dbs
deep said:
So what rights would the "civil union" people not have?
Besides going to heaven when they die?
People don't have the same abilities, relationships are very rarely equal, but under law the involved parties should have equal rights.deep said:
as long as the other partner is seen as an equal
with the same rights, and abilities
a case can be made for allowing a "union".
A_Wanderer said:People don't have the same abilities, relationships are very rarely equal, but under law the involved parties should have equal rights.
deep said:I am 'somewhat' serious here.
I think it is a losing battle to approach this argument by trying to change people's religious beliefs.
It is not possible to legislate what Church's preach.
So again, I say let's not fight over the word "marriage".
Anyone that goes to a "Government Agency" should be offered a "Civil Union".
It might be a good start.
It seems like many "Marriages" end up not being very civil, these days.
But why should the prospect of legalized gay marriage in particular necessitate this change? Civil marriages (for heterosexuals) have been around since the 19th century--obviously they don't entail any pledge that the spouses will abide by some denomination or another's understanding of how marriage should proceed and what its purpose is, and I've never heard a peep from people who oppose legalized gay marriage over that. Why was that loosening of religious institutions' prerogative to define 'marriage' acceptable, whereas this is not?diamond said:A civil union would afford 2 human beings the right to co habitate legally, enjoy heatlh insurance, right of survivorship, alimony bennies if disolving the union etc-things like that.
BonoVoxSupastar said:
I agree, as long as legally they carry the same exact weight.
(But many don't want this)
If the church wants to extend marriages to homosexuals, then they can...
Until it's equal it's bigotry...
deep said:
It is perfectly legal for good religious people to say "Jews and gays will burn in hell."
This was more or less my earlier point about dialogue being necessary given the realities of the context, whether any of us like it or not.INDY500 said:One or two word dismissals and personal attacks are the type of intellectual debate that is supposed to change your opponents (of which there are more of than proponents) deeply held beliefs about redefining marriage?
There are a couple of exceptions and you can read down the posts and identify them pretty quickly. To the rest I'll just say... you're not helping.
deep said:If we all worked towards "Civil Unions".
There is a much better chance of getting rights, benefits and protections for all Americans.
INDY500 said:One or two word dismissals and personal attacks are the type of intellectual debate that is supposed to change your opponents (of which there are more of than proponents) deeply held beliefs about redefining marriage?