chess online
| |||||||||||||
| From | Message | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
 gay marriage |
||||||||||||
|
traditional foundation of marrige, which in the end will ultimately lead to a type of social choas and loss of a fundamental part of what made western civillization great. marrige has always been defined as being between a man and a woman, for the purpose of raising a family - this definition is natural to the morals of the species, even if there is a somewhat predilection to philandering (worse in some folks than others). so in this sense, being a natural definition, I see there being no other definition, it would be like Oxygen saying it want to be Sodium, well these are defined, oxygen cannot be sodium because it does not fit the definition WITH THAT SAID, I do not see a single really good legal reason from making it illegal as the law currently stands. 14th amendment equal protection under the law should extend to any couple that wants to come together to share their stuff, life, insurance, etc. I do not see how this can be stopped. An amendment would do that, but I do not think that an amendment is such a good idea either. I also think this is as an issue that should be generally left to the states. My biggest personal problem with all of this is what I see as the gay community going after "extra" rights, and I find that annoying. Gays are already afforded all the rights of anyone else, but it's always necessary to make sure gays have special status similar to race because they are a dudes who like other dudes?! Sorry, what you do with your winkie, as long as it between consenting adults, is your private business and not a flatform for politics. |
||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||
|
between a man and a woman, for the purpose of raising a family - this definition is natural to the morals of the species" This is actually fundamentally incorrect. Marriage, in its origins, was a transferrence of property: It is when the woman went from being the property of the father to the property of the husband. As long as a government holds itself to a standard of equality it has, essentially, two choices. 1 - Remove itself from marriage completely. People can get an official document of civil union, but marriage is entirely outside the spectre of government. 2 - Provide equal treatment and coverage for same-sex couples. I see I pretty much agree with you on this point. and JDH, Homosexuals do qualify as an ethnic group, and I would be curious what "extra" rights they are going after. dictionary.reference.com" target="_blank">-> dictionary.reference.com |
||||||||||||
|
An ethnic group? Tranference of the "woman" property was part of the deal, but I fail to see where marriage failed to involve a man or a woman. was it the tranference of the son to the new "husband"? No it was a man + woman for the purpose to making children and raising a family. Oxygen is sulfur, even if it says it is. I think a good example of "extra" right would be hate crime legislation. Now if I punch out a straight dude in a bar fight - simple battery, if I do the same thing to a gay dude, now Im guilty of a hate crime because he's gay. Ok, now lets say I punch the straght guy because he bumped into me and puched the gay guy because he was such a flamer. How is one act of battery worse than the other - physically? morally? But the gay lobby would want EXTRA penalties placed for punching a gay because he's gay. |
||||||||||||
|
jd as far as traditional marriage, whatever...we change definitions all the time...it used to be illegal to marry someone of a different race. i am married to a mexican. am i guilty of miscegination? no? oh, you mean ideas have evolved...how about that. things do change. |
||||||||||||
|
before the crime are irrelevant to the crime we were not talking about marrying someone of a different race, but marriage between the same gender - it's a bit of a red herring - you still married a mexican woman, right? even if people had problems with interracial marrige, there was always the understanding that marriage was between man and woman anyway, like I said, I do not see how it can be illegal under the current law |
||||||||||||
|
JDH There is unarguably a unique gay culture. Go to your nearest pride parade/festival next year if you want a first hand example. "my point was the crime is no worse because of the motivation - a guy gets punched - the attackers thoughts before the crime are irrelevant to the crime" This gets into the role of hate crime laws as a whole, and not just as it relates to homosexuals. When together the man and woman will have children and raise a family (historically), but the act of marriage itself was a transferrence of ownership. The "children" argument is also flimsy because one, there are plenty of married heterosexual couples with no intention of raising a family, and two, homosexual couples can adopt and raise kids. |
||||||||||||
|
to disagree (probably crossing semantics anyway) Your point about hate crimes, that is it is bigger than just anti-gay crimes, is true, but I would argue that the gay community pushes this type of legislation to the extreme and over-ractionary, that is why I gave that as an example. Yes ownership - of a WOMAN to a man - my point still stands. And there are excpetions to every rule, doesn't make the generalization not true. But that wasn't my point. Anyway . . . |
||||||||||||
|
i'm into dance music and like to go clubbing, that could be considered a culture, i certainly think it is... does that make me part of an ethnic group? of course not... your definition of ethnic could incorporate groups such as religious sects, witches, football hooligans, chavs... certainly there is a gay culture, but that in itself does not make them ethnic... |
||||||||||||
|
ethnic defined American" target="_blank" rel="nofollow" class=ext>www.m-w.com" target="_blank">-> www.m-w.com Heritage Dictionary - Cambridge" target="_blank" rel="nofollow" class=ext>dictionary.reference.com" target="_blank">-> dictionary.reference.com - And" target="_blank" rel="nofollow" class=ext>dictionary.cambridge.org" target="_blank">-> dictionary.cambridge.org lastly, from Encyclopdia Britannica: "Social group or category of the population that, in a larger society, is set apart and bound together by common ties of language, nationality, or culture. " - All" target="_blank" rel="nofollow" class=ext>www.answers.com" target="_blank">-> www.answers.com include culture in the definition of an ethnic group. Homosexuality, as opposed to being a yobbo or chav, is also biological, and observed in other species. |
||||||||||||
|
and i agree that homosexuality is a biological thing. so we're agreed that gays are an ethnic group. but so are witches and cult members, due to them being a religious based group. ok, hooligans and chavs is a different matter, they just live a primitve life. i don't even know what the relevance of this is in regard to the conversation, i haven't been paying much attention to it, i just felt like being pedantic... |
||||||||||||
|
imoutofpeanuts 21-Aug-06, 13:23 |
Heaven Beside You As for hate crimes, my problem with them is that they punish thought. If I kick man A because he offended my honor and I kick man B because he is Portugese, the actual crime being committed is the exact same. However, due to the trend of punishing thought me kicking man A is less of a crime than me kicking man B. To me thats ridiculous. |
||||||||||||
|
tuggy G |
||||||||||||
|
kingofpawns 21-Aug-06, 13:41 |
I agree with IOP anyone. No religion should be forced to accept gay marriage either. I believe people have the right to believe nonsensical set of beliefs. I also see no problem with polygynous or polyandrous marriages. I haven't thought that much about hate crimes, but the first thing that comes to mind is that there is often premeditation involved in hate crimes that may be missing in other violent crimes of a similar nature. Also, there may be more than one individual involved. For example, a group who encourages their members to commit such crimes. However, to the degree that two crimes involve the same amount of violence, premeditation and perhaps group involvement, I'm hard pressed to see why a "hate" crime deserves more punishment. |
||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||
|
BTW |
||||||||||||
|
bobbynox 21-Aug-06, 18:49 |
Deleted by bobbynox on 23-Jan-07, 09:08.
|
||||||||||||
|
soulcrates 21-Aug-06, 19:09 |
Yikes! You weren't kidding Jeff. |
||||||||||||
|
soulcrates 21-Aug-06, 19:13 |
Before anyone starts |
||||||||||||
|
soul |
||||||||||||
|
soulcrates 21-Aug-06, 19:17 |
Good question. |
||||||||||||
|
zorroloco 21-Aug-06, 19:24 |
Deleted by zorroloco on 21-Aug-06, 19:24.
|
||||||||||||
|
bobbynox 21-Aug-06, 19:26 |
Deleted by bobbynox on 23-Jan-07, 09:08.
|
||||||||||||
|
why so don't you think that it is more important that the parents are loving, respectful, and responsible than that they are of different genders? would you rather be raised by two great gay guys or a mom and dad who are druggies and neglectful or abusive? |
||||||||||||
|
bobby |
||||||||||||
|
bobbynox 21-Aug-06, 19:40 |
Deleted by bobbynox on 23-Jan-07, 09:08.
|
||||||||||||
|
imoutofpeanuts 21-Aug-06, 22:58 |
3 Stories <<I think that jd has asked to very pertinent questions--is homosexuality genetically derived>> This is questionable because we don't know if it is genetically driven, hormonely driven, or even, as some believe, that the mother's immune causes homosexuality. However, most believe that homosexuality is due to a biological effect before birth and it certainly develops before the adolescent years. Regardless of whether it is a gay gene or happens in the mother's womb is irrelevant; homosexuality isn't a choice. <<What is it that homosexuals are trying to achieve with being married?>> Don't know, but my guess would be normalcy and to possess the same rights as heterosexual individuals. You implied benefits and the like as a reason why gays wamt to get married and thats true when it comes to the governmental agency. Personally, I am in favor of getting rid of these social safety nets or lessening their effects which would result in those who desire benefits waning on the demand to marry, but as long as we offer them to heterosexual couples within the law why not homosexual? This of course differs to private insurers and companies who I believe should have the right to deny this union. Still, I think the vast majority of homosexuals want to marry for normalcy and to share their commitment with the world and with their gods. <<It is the unity of a man and a woman by definition>> According to who? The typical definition of marriage in history has allowed men to have multiple wives, something currently illegal in the United States. Many societies have also had same sex pairings and ceremonies that could be considered marriage. So by definition, you'd have to limit yourself to Western Christian non-Mormon doctrine which I guareentee isn't subscribed to by all. Also, for the slippery slope argument brought up by bobbynox. Perhaps the problem is the offer of the governmental benefits and not the abstract unions that arise to take advantage of them? I know this is unlikely given the current nature of our ever-expanding government, but how about instead we limit the scope of the government within personal life. Perhaps instead of widow benefits, we privatize social security or make individual accounts? We could also eliminate such tax problems that arise from married couples and the like. Then, who would really care if the Unitarian Universalists marry 3 woman, 2 horses, and a goat in matrimony? If you wanted to marry your mom at this age, feel free. And if you want to marry yourself, go ahead. Although you might want to wait to find someone better (more zings for your dollar with my posts). |
||||||||||||
|
When we look in the mirror all we get is a reflection.... When Bobby' looks in the mirror he gets an erection.... |
||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
Log in 
