[quote]orion wrote:
cremaster wrote:
Yes, the stability of hetero marriage benefits society. That’s why throughout history, hetero marriage has been given a special place amongst relationships. That’s why, throughout history, you can find examples of cultures that ‘tolerated’ gay relationships, (or polygamy, incest et cetera) but there are NO successful gay/polygamous/incestuous societies/cultures (long-term).
That is blatant nonsense.
There are even polyandrous societies that are older than ours and in the case of polygamy that claim is simply laughable.
[/quote]
I never said that there were no polygamous societies.
I said that polygamous societies are not successful (long-term).
[quote]Mhatch wrote:
Only the ignorant here will deny that gays get descriminated against, that’s still not the main argument here, give civil unions the same benefits and be done with it. [/quote]
[quote]dhickey wrote:
Mhatch wrote:
Only the ignorant here will deny that gays get descriminated against, that’s still not the main argument here, give civil unions the same benefits and be done with it.
[quote]Mhatch wrote:
dhickey wrote:
Mhatch wrote:
Only the ignorant here will deny that gays get descriminated against, that’s still not the main argument here, give civil unions the same benefits and be done with it.
Who should give civil unions benefits?
The Fed? IRS?
[/quote]
It’s not the federal gov’ts job to provide benefits to select people. You want IRS rules changed, chang them. Bloated bureaucracies make rules on the fly all the time.
Not that nobody discriminates against gays, rather that everybody gets discriminated against, gays think it’s because they’re gay and want everybody else to care about that.
Last year, 487 kids between the ages of 13 and 16 were murdered.
I’m much more disgusted by the 487 murders, regardless of motivation, than I am of any one murder/motivation combination. Out of 14,000 murders in 2007, five were motivated by hatred of sexual orientation. How anyone, without personal involvement or political motivation, can hold those five in greater favor than the other 14,000 is beyond me.
[quote]Mhatch wrote:
So you are saying straight men, that find women attractive, should be turned off by lesbian sex, because they believe the idea of two guys having sex is nasty? Right…
I think it’s more like said guys are hoping the women are really bisexual and can join in on the fun.
[/quote]
I’m saying it is hypocritical to deny gays equal rights because you find homosexuality “disgusting”, but only when applied to gay men rather than lesbian women.
[quote]dhickey wrote:
The fed can recognize what ever they would like. Doesn’t mean states have to.
[/quote]
If the states don’t recognize same sex rights, you’re back to the inequity that you have already admitted exists, and cannot be replicated through other means.
[quote]cremaster wrote:
orion wrote:
cremaster wrote:
Yes, the stability of hetero marriage benefits society. That’s why throughout history, hetero marriage has been given a special place amongst relationships. That’s why, throughout history, you can find examples of cultures that ‘tolerated’ gay relationships, (or polygamy, incest et cetera) but there are NO successful gay/polygamous/incestuous societies/cultures (long-term).
That is blatant nonsense.
There are even polyandrous societies that are older than ours and in the case of polygamy that claim is simply laughable.
I never said that there were no polygamous societies.
I said that polygamous societies are not successful (long-term).
[/quote]
Aha?
What constitutes success?
So far those societies were and probably still are the majority and that would mean accepting that we are a monogamous society.
In fact we are a polygamous society and monogamous in name only. You may have noticed that successful men tend to have mistresses.
[quote]cremaster wrote:
Just my opinion, or can I also ACT on my opinion? As your employer/insurer/neighbor/rabbi, can I refuse to acquiesce to your demands? And that’s all your ‘rights’ boil down to - demands. (Hegelian recognition rears its ugly head.)[/quote]
Employers and insurers are required by law to grant certain rights to married couples, so the answer is NO in those cases. Religious leaders and neighbors are not similarly required by law to grant certain rights to married couples, so the answer to those examples is YES.
If marriage provides stability to heterosexual couples due to the legal responsibilities and privileges it bestows, why don’t you think it would provide that same stability to gay couples? And why, for example, don’t you think the children of those gay couples would similarly benefit from that stability?
[quote]Mhatch wrote:
Only the ignorant here will deny that gays get descriminated against, that’s still not the main argument here, give civil unions the same benefits and be done with it. [/quote]
Sounds fair to me, as long as the civil unions include federal responsibilities/benefits.
[quote]forlife wrote:
Mhatch wrote:
So you are saying straight men, that find women attractive, should be turned off by lesbian sex, because they believe the idea of two guys having sex is nasty? Right…
I think it’s more like said guys are hoping the women are really bisexual and can join in on the fun.
I’m saying it is hypocritical to deny gays equal rights because you find homosexuality “disgusting”, but only when applied to gay men rather than lesbian women.[/quote]
I was just addressing your opinion of what you find hypocritical.
[quote]If it was tasteful, you would be gay.
Then again, quite a few straight guys are interested in lesbian sex. I love how that isn’t distasteful at all :)[/quote]
I did not say they should be denied the same benefits of marriage, read my next post.
Gays get the benefits of marriage and religious people can keep the “sanctity” of marriage.
[quote]forlife wrote:
dhickey wrote:
The fed can recognize what ever they would like. Doesn’t mean states have to.
If the states don’t recognize same sex rights, you’re back to the inequity that you have already admitted exists, and cannot be replicated through other means.[/quote]
Be specific. What rights are being denied by states? You list a bunch of federal ones, and ones that have to do with private enterprise.
[quote]dhickey wrote:
Be specific. What rights are being denied by states? You list a bunch of federal ones, and ones that have to do with private enterprise.[/quote]
I was referring to state recognition of the 1,138 statutory provisions associated with marriage in the United States. If you’re willing to grant all 1,138 of these provisions to same sex couples, I don’t care what you call it.
[quote]forlife wrote:
dhickey wrote:
Be specific. What rights are being denied by states? You list a bunch of federal ones, and ones that have to do with private enterprise.
I was referring to state recognition of the 1,138 statutory provisions associated with marriage in the United States. If you’re willing to grant all 1,138 of these provisions to same sex couples, I don’t care what you call it.
[/quote]
If you really care about this, why are you so lazy? Am I suppose to go to the wiki site and comment on all of these? How about you peal out the ones that states are constitutionally allowed to grant to anyone. I saw one but didn’t read the wiki page in detail.
Again, most of these have to do with forcing private enterprise to act a specific way or they have to with the fed.
Forcing private individuals or businesses to dole out certain benefits to certain people is unconstitutional. That is if you want the fed to regulate. If you believe the state has the right to regulate forced benefits, you have to read the state’s constitution. I doubt you will find anything, but I am sure you will look and post your results, as you seem so committed to the cause. You would shirly want to educate yourself and gather as many facts as possible.
As for federally granted benefits. Some are unconstitional. Some are not. Let’s just address those that are within limites that constitution places on the federal gov’t. I see no logical reason the states should be forced by the fed to marry anyone, so that the fed can provide benefits to these people based on the forced grant of status by the state. That doesn’t seem a little backwards to you? If they are federal benefits, the fed can distribute them to whoever they please. Why on earth would they need to force a state to grant status on someone the fed wishes to provide a benefit for?
I honestly support the rights of gays or any other group. I just have a problem with what some people claim to be a right. I also have an issue with illogical and unconstitutional means some take to achieve a desired benefit. Gay, straight, bi, old, young, etc.
You keep saying these marriage benefits are “unconstitutional”. You’re welcome to believe that, but it is a totally different issue having to do with marriage in general. If it’s “unconstitutional” for gays to have these rights, it is similarly “unconstitutional” for heteros to have these rights. You will need to change the existing marriage laws to achieve what you consider to be constitutional fairness.
[quote]forlife wrote:
You keep saying these marriage benefits are “unconstitutional”. You’re welcome to believe that, but it is a totally different issue having to do with marriage in general. If it’s “unconstitutional” for gays to have these rights, it is similarly “unconstitutional” for heteros to have these rights. You will need to change the existing marriage laws to achieve what you consider to be constitutional fairness.[/quote]
fine by me.
I think you might be on the verge of getting it. fix the problem. don’t add to it to suit your own personal agenda.
I don’t agree that it is a problem, because I think the existing responsibilities/privileges of marriage are both constitutional and desirable. I was just pointing out that your criticism applies to marriage in general, rather than specifically to gay marriage.
[quote]forlife wrote:
I don’t agree that it is a problem, because I think the existing responsibilities/privileges of marriage are both constitutional and desirable. I was just pointing out that your criticism applies to marriage in general, rather than specifically to gay marriage.[/quote]
Desirable, fine. If you think all of them are constitutional, you are wrong.