[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
Marriage is an ancient tradition, neither the Church nor the State has control over marriage, in that they cannot change the form or matter of marriage.
[/quote]
Women as property is an ancient tradition, I agree that we (men) should have control over that half of the population, not the government.[/quote]
Ok. I’m not sure how this follows what i said.[/quote]
You can’t pick and choose what parts of a tradition to keep while using it as an argument to preserve something.
And it seems that right-wingers aren’t fans of the rights of individuals. [/quote]
So you are conceding the left is anti-democracy?[/quote]
So you are conceding that the right is anti-individual?
[/quote]
How is it the right of individuals to get married? [/quote]
How is it the right of govt to deny individuals rights based on sex? Obviously there are restrictions put on individuals when it comes to marriage, such as age, but to base it on sex alone is an attack on the rights of the individual in question.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
Marriage is an ancient tradition, neither the Church nor the State has control over marriage, in that they cannot change the form or matter of marriage.
[/quote]
Women as property is an ancient tradition, I agree that we (men) should have control over that half of the population, not the government.[/quote]
Ok. I’m not sure how this follows what i said.[/quote]
You can’t pick and choose what parts of a tradition to keep while using it as an argument to preserve something.[/quote]
Personally, I think they should put back “obey” in the wedding vows.
And it seems that right-wingers aren’t fans of the rights of individuals. [/quote]
So you are conceding the left is anti-democracy?[/quote]
So you are conceding that the right is anti-individual?
[/quote]
How is it the right of individuals to get married? [/quote]
How is it the right of govt to deny individuals rights based on sex? Obviously there are restrictions put on individuals when it comes to marriage, such as age, but to base it on sex alone is an attack on the rights of the individual in question. [/quote]
How does this prove that there is a right of individuals to get married? Can you please show me how individuals have a right to marriage?
Oh, and - incorrect. The relationships are not equal, and can’t be, from a public policy perspective. Don’t believe me? Take the two relationships and hold everythig constant - companionship, desire for mutual financial support, love, etc. - it’s all equal.
Except - one relationship produces children, the other doesn’t. And our entire system of laws is predicated on that w/r/t marriage and family relations policy.
[/quote]
Not always. So are you saying that marriage should only be allowed between people who are willing and able to produce children?
And it seems that right-wingers aren’t fans of the rights of individuals. [/quote]
So you are conceding the left is anti-democracy?[/quote]
So you are conceding that the right is anti-individual?
[/quote]
How is it the right of individuals to get married? [/quote]
How is it the right of govt to deny individuals rights based on sex? Obviously there are restrictions put on individuals when it comes to marriage, such as age, but to base it on sex alone is an attack on the rights of the individual in question. [/quote]
How does this prove that there is a right of individuals to get married? Can you please show me how individuals have a right to marriage?[/quote]
14th amendment.
And it seems that right-wingers aren’t fans of the rights of individuals. [/quote]
So you are conceding the left is anti-democracy?[/quote]
So you are conceding that the right is anti-individual?
[/quote]
How is it the right of individuals to get married? [/quote]
How is it the right of govt to deny individuals rights based on sex? Obviously there are restrictions put on individuals when it comes to marriage, such as age, but to base it on sex alone is an attack on the rights of the individual in question. [/quote]
How does this prove that there is a right of individuals to get married? Can you please show me how individuals have a right to marriage?[/quote]
14th amendment. [/quote]
How does the 14th Amendment give individuals the right to marry?
[quote]zecarlo wrote:
Oh, and gay people can reproduce. [/quote]
I must have missed this lecture in my bio 100 class. Please explain.[/quote]
Does being a gay man make one sterile? Does being a gay woman make one infertile? Have not gay men married women and had children?
If a hetero couple can take advantage of sperm or egg donors or surrogates then why can’t gay couples?
And it seems that right-wingers aren’t fans of the rights of individuals. [/quote]
So you are conceding the left is anti-democracy?[/quote]
So you are conceding that the right is anti-individual?
[/quote]
How is it the right of individuals to get married? [/quote]
How is it the right of govt to deny individuals rights based on sex? Obviously there are restrictions put on individuals when it comes to marriage, such as age, but to base it on sex alone is an attack on the rights of the individual in question. [/quote]
How does this prove that there is a right of individuals to get married? Can you please show me how individuals have a right to marriage?[/quote]
14th amendment. [/quote]
How does the 14th Amendment give individuals the right to marry?[/quote]
It was used to defend interracial marriage. The state couldn’t deny the right to get married based on race.
I’m not really sure that the state not recongnizing gay marriage is equal to, or comparable to, enslaving people.[/quote]
That’s because it isn’t. Not even remotely. State not recognizing, arranging, ordering, and promoting a private and individual relationship? Well, we keep hearing how it’s a private expression of an individual’s rights…So, it’s only appropriate that the government not recognize it. It’s a private act without critical and irreplaceable implications for society as a whole. The government is presently treating it as a private expression, by not recognizing it.
Compare that to slavery? Give me a break.[/quote]
It is not a comparable evil to slavery, but it is a comparable evil to prohibiting one race from marrying into another. And whether you couch it in terms of “recognizing” the marriage or “prohibiting it” is just a matter of semantics.
[/quote]
No it’s not.
Male/ Male, or Female/ Female unions are not even remotely close to a male/ female pair-bond. I’d give 'em a legal union, but a marriage it is not, PERIOD.[/quote]
I’ll note several thing about your post.
First, it shows that “Marriage” is important to you, which means its is likely important to gay couples. Denying that status to gay couples is clearly a “harm” to them, otherwise this wouldn’t be an issue.
[/quote]
Bullshit. Being gay doesn’t entitle you to shit.
Incorrect. Your the one dragging religion into this. I merely stated that gay unions are not even remotely the same as a strait marriage. It’s the dichotomy of the sexes that make a marriage. Gay unions lack that hence, it’s not the same thing. You’re trying to make a point that something that is not like something is in fact like something. Incorrect.
I am not about to tell people what to do, and if you did not notice, I said I was fine with them having a recognized union, but it’s not a marriage. You cannot make something it’s not and gay unions are not marriages. They simply lack the fundamental components, both physically and psychologically.
When you boil it down men are still men and women are still women, sticking two of them together does not change that fact. In fact, since the relationship lacks the dichotomy and artificial one is put in place. You have somebody in the male on male relationship riding bitch, the problem is, he is still a man.
Perhaps then you should worry about changing the law regarding ‘civil unions’ instead of poisoning the wells of ‘marriage’ by making it an ‘anything goes’ tenet. You can’t make is something it’s not.
And it seems that right-wingers aren’t fans of the rights of individuals. [/quote]
So you are conceding the left is anti-democracy?[/quote]
So you are conceding that the right is anti-individual?
[/quote]
How is it the right of individuals to get married? [/quote]
How is it the right of govt to deny individuals rights based on sex? Obviously there are restrictions put on individuals when it comes to marriage, such as age, but to base it on sex alone is an attack on the rights of the individual in question. [/quote]
How does this prove that there is a right of individuals to get married? Can you please show me how individuals have a right to marriage?[/quote]
I found this:
The operative constitutional text is section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment, which was ratified in 1868. The relevant passages read as follows:
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
The U.S. Supreme Court first applied this standard to marriage in Loving v. Virginia (1967), where it struck down a Virginia law banning interracial marriage. As Chief Justice Earl Warren wrote for the majority:
The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men ...
To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.
I’m not really sure that the state not recongnizing gay marriage is equal to, or comparable to, enslaving people.[/quote]
That’s because it isn’t. Not even remotely. State not recognizing, arranging, ordering, and promoting a private and individual relationship? Well, we keep hearing how it’s a private expression of an individual’s rights…So, it’s only appropriate that the government not recognize it. It’s a private act without critical and irreplaceable implications for society as a whole. The government is presently treating it as a private expression, by not recognizing it.
Compare that to slavery? Give me a break.[/quote]
That comparison is so blatantly offensive I am offended and I am not even black. It’s not even the same game much less ball park. I wonder why the NAACP doesn’t jump down their throats for making these ridiculous comparison.[/quote]
Because the NAACP sits more to the left. However, most Black folks I’ve encountered take offense to the comment. Maybe it’s because they’re dull minded and backwards people (as the left-wing calls anyone who does not support same-sex marriage), but they do not support same-sex marriage. They are categorically one of the biggest supporters of traditional families.[/quote]
I’d like to hear from our black brethren about this slavery comparison. I would be fucking offended, but I hope they hammer away on it. Saying dumb shit like that will kill the movement faster than any counter movement could ever hope to.
I’m not all that concerned with where this has or hasn’t been debated. Also, so what if one relationship produces children and the other does not? Gay couples are not going to produce children whether they are married or not, so what interest is the state furthering by denying them the right to marry? The same number of children will be produced whether or not gay marriage is recognized. [/quote]
Because there are unique public policy problems related to the whole field of reproduction and child raising from time immemorial, or hadn’t you noticed? The relationship that produces chidlren - heterosexual - require special attention because of all the social problems/issues this relationship can cause.
That is the function of the public policy of marriage - dealing with these problems that arise from this relationship - not making people feel culturally “validated” by being able to have a state-sanctioned wedding license.
[quote]zecarlo wrote:
Oh, and gay people can reproduce. [/quote]
I must have missed this lecture in my bio 100 class. Please explain.[/quote]
Does being a gay man make one sterile? Does being a gay woman make one infertile? Have not gay men married women and had children?
If a hetero couple can take advantage of sperm or egg donors or surrogates then why can’t gay couples? [/quote]
Seems like you’re using equivocation. Yes, people with same-sex attractions can reproduce if they have sexual intercourse with the opposite sex. However, in the assumption we’re still on the topic of same-sex unions, within in that union the two persons cannot reproduce children, which is what is being stated. So, no same-sex unions can not produce children.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
Deal? If we put it up to popular vote can both sides promise to take the results and STFU? Such a tired non-issue that is never going to have pro/con find middle ground.[/quote]
Makes sense. Let’s allow the majority to decide an issue that affects a minority. We probably should have done the same with slavery. Popular opinion does not equal justice. [/quote]
I’m not really sure that the state not recongnizing gay marriage is equal to, or comparable to, enslaving people.
[/quote]
Then change it to miscegenation. [/quote]
I like how you ignore the rest of my post, particularly the last part.
Remember, I’m coming from a position of agreeing with you. So I’ll ask again:
If democracy isn’t the answer, what is your solution to the issue?
And it seems that right-wingers aren’t fans of the rights of individuals. [/quote]
So you are conceding the left is anti-democracy?[/quote]
So you are conceding that the right is anti-individual?
[/quote]
How is it the right of individuals to get married? [/quote]
How is it the right of govt to deny individuals rights based on sex? Obviously there are restrictions put on individuals when it comes to marriage, such as age, but to base it on sex alone is an attack on the rights of the individual in question. [/quote]
How does this prove that there is a right of individuals to get married? Can you please show me how individuals have a right to marriage?[/quote]
14th amendment. [/quote]
How does the 14th Amendment give individuals the right to marry?[/quote]
It was used to defend interracial marriage. The state couldn’t deny the right to get married based on race. [/quote]
Yes, it was used to defend interracial marriage. I’m still not sure how the 14th Amendment gives anyone the right to marry. Please explain this? Because you’ve yet to explain that there is a right to marry in the first place.