Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
The Absurdity Of 'the Defense Of Marriage'  
User currently offlineBCAInfoSys From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (8 years 6 months 3 weeks 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 1685 times:

Hi boys and girls. Thought ya'll would be interested in this one. I am currently taking an online English section and we've been directed to write an extensive research paper. The informal, off-the-cuff paper proposal was due today and I just submitted mine. I think it's going to be very interesting. (This is an online section and I just posted the proposal to the forums where we post all of our submissions.)

While reading the paragraphs below, keep in mind what my classmates don't know. While I may have come off as a little emotional and being on a rant, that was my intention for my proposal. I think the first step to enlightment is having honest, forthright discussion concerning the particular issue. For the "moral majority" here in Utah, the issue really hasn't been addressed.

I used a little bit of strong language and a few very blunt statements to try and shift people outside of their comfort zone. I want to provoke some very honest discourse. Because once people start having honest discussion with each other and realize that there is more to an issue then the "bubble" they've always done, then they can start to see that there might be another answer; there might be another way. If I can get people talking frankly, then they have taken the first step towards self-realization.

So here's my informal proposal:

I think I've come up with a paper topic that I feel very adamant about, and one with the majority of Utah would disagree with me. It will generate a lot of discussion, but it needs to be said. This whole movement for "the defense of marriage" is absurd. It's ridiculous and absolute (pardon my french) horseshit that state governments across the country are discriminating against those of alternative lifestyles. There was even a proposal to modify the Constitution! Can you imagine such a ridiculous notion, amending the Constitution to write-in discrimination?! That is not what this country is about!

As a heterosexual (straight) male, I have a limited personal perspective on this issue. But some of my best friends in the world are gay and it drives me bonkers to see anyone treat them any differently and to see them denied rights that should be legally theirs. This is like the Civil Rights Movement, part 2; just a different group being put down this time.

Let's review the motivations of those who would like to oppress this particular group, shall we?

Health benefits/insurance, pensions, etc: The standard benefits provided to any married couple are denied to domestic partnerships because it would obligate employers to provide these benefits to a much larger base. (Thus, domestic parternships = more cost to corporations, something they strive to avoid; and will use their muscle in Congress to try and get their way.)

Civil Unions vs. Marriage: Religious groups in all of their sanctimoniousness, are stubbornly opposed to any "threat" to their beliefs. In their backwards thinking, they believe that homosexuals are an abomonation to God and somehow by allowing them the same rights as anyone else (to get married), we are somehow ensuring hellfire and brimstone for the Earth. I mean really, how asinine can you be to put your faith in a 2000 year-old book of fairy tales without any sort of corroboration as to its authenticity? I would like to think that any sort of real God would be about love and tolerance for your fellow man. How very "Christian" to dismiss someone to "Hell" for challenging their pre-conceived notions of right and wrong. How mentally feeble do you need to be threatened by new ideas? Would it possibly kill fundamentalists to evaluate their own methodology every now and then?

How completely offensive it is to think that any one particular group has the lock on all world truth. What makes you so special that you know any better then the rest of us? Haven't you ever heard of "live and let live"?!

OK, well rant over. I still have a lot of work to do to back up my position. But this is what I'm writing my paper about. How absolutely absurd and derogatory the "defense of marriage" campaign is.


****************************

So whether you agree with me or not, I think this should provide some very interesting discussion from those who may not have honestly addressed this issue before. I'm fully expecting a firestorm, but once I'm done; I'm going to have a rock-solid case backed up by data and research that in the context of the discussion, could hopefully get some people to re-consider the bubble they've always lived in.

What do you guys think? Am I just setting myself up for trouble with my little sociological experiment?

41 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineJean Leloup From Canada, joined Apr 2001, 2116 posts, RR: 19
Reply 1, posted (8 years 6 months 3 weeks 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 1669 times:

An interesting topic, obviously. But not a well-written proposal. The fact that I disagree fundamentally with your approach isn't what bothers me, though; it's the over-the-top use of rhetoric.

You say you're talking like that to take people out of their comfort zone, etc. But that doesn't sound like a 'research paper'. Your tone sounds like the ranting of an extremist political radio-host, who indeed has no interest in making well-researched points.

I suggest that if you want anyone to take you serioursly, you greatly tone down the emotional approach and see if it might be possible for you to look at this issue dispassionately or objectively. The way it comes across is as though you are angry but don't have anything well-thought out to say. The spelling and grammatical mistakes are not helpful either.

JL

*Incidentally, if you don't already know, I certainly believe gay marriage and completely equal legal rights are appropriate and necessary. But you need to have much better reasons than the anti-religious rhetoric you are using. It's clear that you don't understand religion in the least, and you don't appear to be interested in understanding it, either. Fair enough, but in that case, try and construct some arguments about why your position is right instead of just ranting about people whom (I'm sorry to say) you do not understand, i.e., Christians.



Next flight.... who knows.
User currently offlineRichardPrice From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (8 years 6 months 3 weeks 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 1664 times:

Marriage should be open to everyone, whatever their sexuality, so long as both parties are of legal age to enter a contract and both parties consent.

The Churches can refuse religious weddings all they want, but civil marriage should be open to anyone who wants it.

But I also feel that there should be a limited alternative to marriage, say a contractual bonding for 10 years, then the contract can be renewed or it automatically comes to an end, activating whatever clauses were part of the contract at the start  Smile


User currently offlineMBMBOS From United States of America, joined May 2000, 2597 posts, RR: 1
Reply 3, posted (8 years 6 months 3 weeks 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 1658 times:

Is your assignment to write a research paper or a thesis? Because there is a difference.

It is my understanding that a research paper tends to be focused on providing information within the scope of what is being researched and it tends to be neutral.

If this is a thesis, or a composition, then asserting an opinion and supporting it is much more appropriate.

In any case, you must always consider your rhetorical style. By making strong, blunt statements from the outset you will succeed in turning some of your readers off. Providing information and respectfully considering other points of view will win over a few doubters and at least, will keep 'em reading to the end.

There are lots of different ways to approach this subject, but you must be a masterful writer to pull off an aggressive approach such as the one you are suggesting.

Anyway, just my thoughts. Wish you success on your paper.

- MBM


User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21637 posts, RR: 55
Reply 4, posted (8 years 6 months 3 weeks 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 1644 times:

I notice you used the word "bonkers" in this piece. I respect that - it takes balls to do that in academia.  bigthumbsup 

On a more serious note, I don't think so many people are actually opposed to gay marriage. I think they're more scared shitless about all the changes that the world is going through these days, and are looking for something that they can hold onto as a constant. They found it in abortion and gay marriage - two things that they can actually do something about. Eventually, they will lose the battle, but they are going to leave everything on the battlefield in trying to win.

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlineBCAInfoSys From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (8 years 6 months 3 weeks 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 1594 times:

I realize I was a little over the top; but keep in mind, this isn't a structured proposal. It's merely an informal research idea that I posted to a forum of my classmates. I kinda wanted to push a few buttons and see what happened.

Don't worry, the paper will be much more fact based and much more toned down on the rheoteric.  Big grin


User currently offlineDougloid From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (8 years 6 months 3 weeks 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 1579 times:

Quoting Mir (Reply 4):
They found it in abortion and gay marriage - two things that they can actually do something about.

Not entirely sure I agree with your premise that these are outlets for the powerless to kick a little ass and makes themselves feel real. There are quite a number of people who are intelligent, competent and humane, and yet who are opposed to abortion and homosexual marriage. They're called Catholics, and thy've been around for a good long time. My guess? The LDS agree with the Catholics, and there's a lot of them too.

And there's a conceptual difference as well-nobody gets killed in a homosexual marriage.


On the other hand, suppose that the legislature in South Dakota decides "Nope. no more abortion in our state!" That's entirely within the reach of the people speaking through their elected legislators. It's not a civil rights issue, either.

Haven't the people spoken through their legislature? Who are you and I to question that?


User currently offlineSearpqx From Netherlands, joined Jun 2000, 4344 posts, RR: 10
Reply 7, posted (8 years 6 months 3 weeks 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 1579 times:

Quoting Dougloid (Reply 6):
Haven't the people spoken through their legislature? Who are you and I to question that?

Under that logic, in some places blacks should still be sitting in the back of the bus, races should not intermarry, etc. In our republic, rights are not defined by solely by the majority.

Needless to say, I agree with your position, but I have to think that the very nature of your approach, while understandable, diminishes the chances of it being selected as the topic (if I understand the process correctly). I do hope it gets people talking, but unless the Prof is looking for an emotional outpouring, I wonder if he'll instead go with something that has more logic and less emotion as a starting point. Either way, kudos for having the guts to do what you did - I'm very interested in how it turns out.



"The two most common elements in the universe are Hydrogen and stupidity"
User currently offlineDougloid From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (8 years 6 months 3 weeks 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 1566 times:

Quoting Searpqx (Reply 7):
Under that logic, in some places blacks should still be sitting in the back of the bus, races should not intermarry, etc. In our republic, rights are not defined by solely by the majority.

That's a weak argument-all the things you name are a matter of one race arbitrarily denying to another the rights they themselves enjoy.

Abortion isn't a civil rights issue. There's no inherent right to get a dilettation and curettage to get rid of a *problem*.

If you ask me, all abortion is is a really shitty family planning tool, which unfortunately the state takes an interest in, due to the police power to regulate the health, welfare, public safety and morals of the populace at large. In a lot of cases I believe it to be a copout and a way of not taking responsibility for your choices. That's just an opinion, mind you.

Unlike a lot of people around here, I do not claim to have the answer to this story.

I can tell you that it has all turned out pretty well considering how it started. As it was, I got pushed into being a stand up guy on this one issue. And you know what? The air's a lot cleaner up here.


User currently offlineAndesSMF From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 9, posted (8 years 6 months 3 weeks 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 1547 times:

I remember a quote from somebody about whether gay people have the right to marry another person, and the answer is actually yes! There are limits placed on who you can marry. I cant marry my mother or my sister or another woman or women if I wanted to. I cant even marry a 14 year old! Are my rights then being infringed upon??

So marriage has been defined thru the ages as a union between a man and a woman. Any other type of union should then be called what it is, just not marriage. So I agree that there should be a legal means for two 'people' to form a union with the same rights as marriage, just not the name.

BTW, you are wrongly assumming that people in Utah would disagree with you. The same argument for gay marriage is starting to get used for plural marriages. Be careful what you wish for!!


User currently offline11Bravo From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 1718 posts, RR: 10
Reply 10, posted (8 years 6 months 3 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 1506 times:

Quoting Dougloid (Reply 8):
Abortion isn't a civil rights issue.

Pro-choice advocates would suggest that the ability to make decisions about medical procedures, including abortion, without government interference is a civil right, and the courts have agreed with that position citing the implied "Right to Privacy" in the Constitution. Similarly, pro-life advocates suggest that the civil rights of the fetus should be the basis of a ban on abortion. I don't see how you can make an argument that it isn't a civil rights issue when both sides use that nexus as the foundation of their respective positions.

Quoting AndesSMF (Reply 9):
There are limits placed on who you can marry. I cant marry my mother or my sister or another woman or women if I wanted to. I cant even marry a 14 year old! Are my rights then being infringed upon?

No, the government can prohibit marriage in those cases because it can show a compelling state interest for doing so. There are tangible effects of public health and protection of minors at issue.

The equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment is really the core issue of homosexual marriage, and it should have been the basis of discussion in this "research paper", which is really an opinion piece and has no basis in evidence or logical argument. Does the government have a compelling interest to prohibit gay marriage? That is the real question.



WhaleJets Rule!
User currently offlineD L X From United States of America, joined May 1999, 11357 posts, RR: 52
Reply 11, posted (8 years 6 months 3 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 1490 times:

Quoting BCAInfoSys (Thread starter):
The standard benefits provided to any married couple are denied to domestic partnerships because it would obligate employers to provide these benefits to a much larger base.

The gay population is at most 2% of the general population. The effect on corporations would be tiny. (Yes folks, we are screaming bloody murder about what we don't want a very very small minority to do. Senseless, ain't it?)

Quoting BCAInfoSys (Thread starter):
I mean really, how asinine can you be to put your faith in a 2000 year-old book of fairy tales without any sort of corroboration as to its authenticity?

I would try my best not to disparage that 2000 year old book, especially when many of its followers are on your side re gay rights.

Quoting BCAInfoSys (Thread starter):
I would like to think that any sort of real God would be about love and tolerance for your fellow man.

This might be a good basis for research. It would definitely be an interesting paper if you could tie in what the Bible and perhaps other religious texts have to say in support of allowing a type of gay union.

Quoting Jean Leloup (Reply 1):
Your tone sounds like the ranting of an extremist political radio-host, who indeed has no interest in making well-researched points.

Unfortunately, the tone for this type of argument (in support of gay rights) is definitely going to have to be above general tone, or people won't bother past the first paragraph. That's how polarized the issue is. Now, there is a way to up the amplitude and still make intelligent arguments - that is the challenge.

Quoting RichardPrice (Reply 2):
The Churches can refuse religious weddings all they want, but civil marriage should be open to anyone who wants it.

checkmark }

Quoting RichardPrice (Reply 2):
But I also feel that there should be a limited alternative to marriage, say a contractual bonding for 10 years

uhh.... what?

Quoting Dougloid (Reply 6):
On the other hand, suppose that the legislature in South Dakota decides "Nope. no more abortion in our state!" That's entirely within the reach of the people speaking through their elected legislators. It's not a civil rights issue, either.

Absolutely not. No state is above the U.S. Constitution. If the Constitution says or implies that a state cannot ban abortion, then a state cannot ban abortion. Simple as that. The South Dakota law was enacted for the deliberate purpose of seeing if the new court will overturn Casey (what everyone thinks is Roe v. Wade, which was actually overturned in 1986).

Quoting Dougloid (Reply 8):
Abortion isn't a civil rights issue. There's no inherent right to get a dilettation and curettage to get rid of a *problem*.

There is an inherent right to be free of government telling you when and where to raise a family. Abortion is an obvious civil rights issue - just not one that necessarily ends with granting the right.

Quoting 11Bravo (Reply 10):
citing the implied "Right to Privacy" in the Constitution

Off topic, but it is important to note that the Right to Privacy doesn't belong in quotes - it is a real right. The Fourth Amendment says that persons shall be free from unreasonable government invasion of their bodies, houses, and belongings. Translated, that means persons have the right to be *private* and to keep the state from entering their bodies or their houses. Both Republicans and Democrats firmly believe this, and there is great support from the Supreme Court. The issue is that pro-life people want a "carve-out" for abortion. The argument is over whether there is legal constitutional basis for such an exception.

Quoting 11Bravo (Reply 10):
The equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment is really the core issue of homosexual marriage, and it should have been the basis of discussion in this "research paper", which is really an opinion piece and has no basis in evidence or logical argument. Does the government have a compelling interest to prohibit gay marriage? That is the real question.

Yup. Put another way, A and B are two people that love C. A is a man, B is a woman, and C is a woman. The Equal Protection argument is that it discriminates against B if the state allows A to marry C but not B to marry C simply because B is a woman. Gender discrimination requires the state to have an "important government interest" and that the discrimination is "substantially related" to that interest. It has been ruled that having an all male military academy isn't important enough to allow state discrimination. In that light, it will be interesting to see the state produce an argument for something so personal as marriage that can actually be considered an important interest.

Your research paper should look more like that, imo.



Send me a PM at http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/sendmessage.main?from_username=NULL
User currently offlineRJpieces From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 12, posted (8 years 6 months 3 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 1473 times:

It has always seemed like the Defense of Marriage act will not hold up in front of the Supreme Court. So, IMO, it's just a matter of time until they hear a case on it....

User currently offlineRichardPrice From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 13, posted (8 years 6 months 3 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 1471 times:

Quoting D L X (Reply 11):

uhh.... what?

Call it a 'Marriage Lite'. How many people today get married and get divorced after a period of time? Its a huge percentage of marriages! So why not create a version of marriage that allows people to stay together if they want to, but part company with no ill will (divorce court) if they dont after a period of time.

Marriage needs to adapt to modern life, and seperation of Religion is only one of those things that needs to happen.


User currently offlineNancy From United States of America, joined May 2004, 467 posts, RR: 5
Reply 14, posted (8 years 6 months 3 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 1463 times:

I notice that the people who want to defend marriage aren't making any proposals that would impact them such as limiting the amount of times you can divorced and remarried. Or if you get divorced, you can't get remarried for 5 years. Oh wait, what's that screaming I hear- it's not the government's place to dictate who and when adults can marry? The government needs to stay out of people's personal lives? Put up a couple of proposals to "defend marriage" that affect straight people and wait for cacophony of objections to start.

User currently offlineCfalk From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 15, posted (8 years 6 months 3 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 1453 times:

Quoting BCAInfoSys (Thread starter):
Health benefits/insurance, pensions, etc: The standard benefits provided to any married couple are denied to domestic partnerships because it would obligate employers to provide these benefits to a much larger base. (Thus, domestic parternships = more cost to corporations, something they strive to avoid; and will use their muscle in Congress to try and get their way.)

I have not heard anyone make that argument. It makes no significant sense.

Quoting BCAInfoSys (Thread starter):
I mean really, how asinine can you be to put your faith in a 2000 year-old book of fairy tales without any sort of corroboration as to its authenticity?

Something called faith. Faith is something that you believe in even if there is no proof. Faith allows you, for example, to feel optomistic, that people in the world are essentially good, and are worth saving. Without some faith, well, fuçk 'em.

Quoting BCAInfoSys (Thread starter):
How very "Christian" to dismiss someone to "Hell" for challenging their pre-conceived notions of right and wrong.

You might be talking about some of the high-falootin' fundementalists. Don't bunch us all with them. I happen to believe that it is not my place to say to anyone that they are going to hell or anywhere else. I'm not the judge. God is. But I do have the right, and even the obligation, to withhold any active support from something I do not agree with.

Quoting Jean Leloup (Reply 1):
You say you're talking like that to take people out of their comfort zone, etc. But that doesn't sound like a 'research paper'. Your tone sounds like the ranting of an extremist political radio-host, who indeed has no interest in making well-researched points.

 checkmark 

Quoting Nancy (Reply 14):
I notice that the people who want to defend marriage aren't making any proposals that would impact them such as limiting the amount of times you can divorced and remarried. Or if you get divorced, you can't get remarried for 5 years.

Believe me, I would support that. This business of easy divorce (and easy marriage) is very harmful to society. I think that the only reasons to grant a divorce should be for gross outrage, such as infidelity or beatings. Otherwise, you made your vows, you live up to them.


User currently offlineSFOMEX From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 16, posted (8 years 6 months 3 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 1448 times:

Quoting RJpieces (Reply 12):
It has always seemed like the Defense of Marriage act will not hold up in front of the Supreme Court. So, IMO, it's just a matter of time until they hear a case on it....

Interesting. Yet, I don't think the current SC has at least five Justices willing to vote against it unless, of course, Justice Alito is another Souter in the making, which I find quite unlikely.


User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21637 posts, RR: 55
Reply 17, posted (8 years 6 months 3 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 1444 times:

Quoting Dougloid (Reply 6):
There are quite a number of people who are intelligent, competent and humane, and yet who are opposed to abortion and homosexual marriage. They're called Catholics, and thy've been around for a good long time.

I'm sure they have. But I also think that the more reasonable among them (which I'm estimating at about 80% of them) get swept up in the furor created by the others. Last night I was skimming through channels on TV and happened upon a priest who was claiming that the real purpose of Planned Parenthood was to wage genocide against blacks, because blacks have more abortions. When there's so much misinformation and propaganda flying around, it's not surprising that many get dragged into the fight.

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlineSFOMEX From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 18, posted (8 years 6 months 3 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 1442 times:

Quoting Mir (Reply 17):
the real purpose of Planned Parenthood was to wage genocide against blacks, because blacks have more abortions.

Mir:

Do you know PP's founder and her ideas regarding minorities? My opinion might be biased (I'm pro-life and I belong to a minority), but I'd invite you to do some research about the beliefs of the founder of Planned Parenthood. You'll find it quite interesting.


User currently offlineCfalk From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 19, posted (8 years 6 months 3 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 1434 times:

Quoting SFOMEX (Reply 18):
Do you know PP's founder and her ideas regarding minorities?

I seem to remember something about that. She was a big supporter of Eugenics, wasn't she?

For those of you who don't know what eugenics is, Basically it is what Hitler wanted. A master race, selective breeding, eliminating "weak" genes from the gene pool (by gas chambers, abortion or sterilization, what's the difference).

PS, I am pro-choice, but I find some of these rabid pro-choice advocates a little scary sometimes.


User currently offlineSFOMEX From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 20, posted (8 years 6 months 3 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 1423 times:

Quoting Cfalk (Reply 19):
She was a big supporter of Eugenics, wasn't she?

Exactly. Not even PP denies that Margaret Sanger was part of the Eugenic movement that would have its climax during Hitler's regime. Of course, PP devotes itself to explain and justify her supporting for:

"Incentives for the voluntary hospitalization and/or sterilization of people with untreatable, disabling, hereditary conditions

The adoption and enforcement of stringent regulations to prevent the immigration of the diseased and "feebleminded" into the U.S.

Placing so-called illiterates, paupers, unemployables, criminals, prostitutes, and dope-fiends on farms and open spaces as long as necessary for the strengthening and development of moral conduct."

The quote is founded in PP's website itself, along with plenty of lame excuses.

BTW, if you believe that the modern PP doesn't support her founder's view, I'd invite you to do this: open your local yellow pages and look for the adressees of your local PP clinics. Check out the neighborhoods where MOST of them are located. Are they predominantly Black/Hispanic/Asian areas? It's not a coincidence.

More proofs? Plenty of them:

-She published such articles as "Some Moral Aspects of Eugenics" (June 1920), "The Eugenic Conscience" (February 1921), "The purpose of Eugenics" (December 1924), "Birth Control and Positive Eugenics" (July 1925), "Birth Control: The True Eugenics" (August 1928), and many others.

-Dr. Harry Laughlin, another Sanger associate and board member for her group, spoke of purifying America's human "breeding stock" and purging America's "bad strains." These "strains" included the "shiftless, ignorant, and worthless class of antisocial whites of the South."

-Margaret Sanger spoke of sterilizing those she designated as "unfit," a plan she said would be the "salvation of American civilization.: And she also spike of those who were "irresponsible and reckless," among whom she included those " whose religious scruples prevent their exercising control over their numbers." She further contended that "there is no doubt in the minds of all thinking people that the procreation of this group should be stopped." That many Americans of African origin constituted a segment of Sanger considered "unfit" cannot be easily refuted.


User currently offlineHighpeaklad From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2004, 538 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (8 years 6 months 3 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 1420 times:

I don't understand the need to "defend" marriage. How is marriage under attack?

If the law is changed to allow same sex marriage do married straight couples suddenly become less married?

Are straight couples going to be less likely to marry?

I don't think so . So what is there to defend marriage from?

Chris



Don't try to keep up with the Joneses - bring them down to your level !
User currently offlineGigneil From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 16347 posts, RR: 84
Reply 22, posted (8 years 6 months 3 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 1415 times:

Marriage should not be legal for anyone. Period.

The government should administer civil unions and nothing else, regardless of the sex of the applicants.

What people do at their church is up to them. If they desire a religious ceremony, so be it. If churches wish to marry two heterosexuals, so be it. If a church wishes to marry two homosexuals, so be it.

No religious action should carry the force of law.

N


User currently offlineHighpeaklad From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2004, 538 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (8 years 6 months 3 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 1402 times:

Quoting Gigneil (Reply 22):
The government should administer civil unions and nothing else, regardless of the sex of the applicants.

As far as I'm aware that's exactly how it is (in the UK anyway). Ok,its marriage for straights and civil partnership for gays, but each confers EXACTLY the same rights so I'm not splitting hairs.

Chris



Don't try to keep up with the Joneses - bring them down to your level !
User currently offlineGigneil From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 16347 posts, RR: 84
Reply 24, posted (8 years 6 months 3 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 1385 times:

We're not quite so progressive over here in the land of the free.

N


25 Dougloid : As a matter of interest, Garrett Hardin, beloved of environmentalists the world over for his bogus "tragedy of the commons" formulation that is accep
26 Post contains images STLGph :
27 Post contains links SATX : I'm under the '2+2' impression that most of its followers are NOT in support of gay rights. I'm also under the impression that those who are actively
28 Senorcarnival : Actually, some large corporations (Disney, for instance) offer health benefits to same-sex partners so I don't think that argument would hold too wel
29 D L X : Those two statements are not incongruent. Even if most believe X, many may believe Not-X. How many people do you know fornicate on saturday and go to
30 AndesSMF : So are you telling me that you are placing limits on my personal freedom, you right wing nut!! I mean, who are you to tell me who I can marry? This i
31 Cfalk : Things would be a bit more clear in the US if the state would stop authorizing priests to act for the state in terms of marriage. Here in Switzerland,
32 Viv : Your proposal is badly written and suffers from the fact that your answer to the question posed is clearly obvious from the outset.
33 Post contains images D L X : That's almost true in the US too. It doesn't matter how holy the minister that marries you is, if you don't have a marriage license, you're not marri
34 Post contains images Cfalk : My wife, my mother and my mother in law arranged the whole thing. All I had to do is show up for a tux fitting (and the ceremony, of course )
35 Dougloid : Ummmmm, not sure I heard that before and anyway nobody who gets married in the states is required to have a priest or minister bless the arrangement.
36 Cfalk : Now yu managed to confuse me right there. The state requires a priest? What about seperation of church and state? Look, this is quite simple. Marriag
37 Dougloid : A minister is not required, which is what I said. However, they can and do perform marriages if asked.
38 Cfalk : Oops, you're right. My mistake.
39 MDorBust : You won't be seeing any such law in Texas anytime soon. The law was an intrusion into private acts between consenting adults. Unless the state can sh
40 SATX : Isn't that what exactly what red states do best? Why would they stop now? Why worry about the district attorney when we have an attorney general that
41 Post contains images MDorBust : Your best argument for your assertion that the state of Texas is going to attempt to insitute a new law to prohibit gay sexual intercourse is that Te
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
The Fun Of Driving? What? posted Tue Nov 21 2006 22:23:10 by Foppishbum
Anniversary Of The Fall Of The Berlin Wall posted Thu Nov 9 2006 22:03:00 by Speedbird747BA
The People Of Hazleton Versus The Federal Court posted Wed Nov 1 2006 17:49:25 by AerospaceFan
The Worship Of The Airship posted Tue Oct 24 2006 05:44:30 by Aerotik
The End Of The World Cup? posted Sat Oct 14 2006 05:23:52 by Derico
The Return Of The 'Signed By'! posted Wed Sep 6 2006 04:27:45 by Carmenlu15
Calling The Cat Experts: Meaning Of Cat Actions? posted Wed Aug 23 2006 22:10:24 by Matt D
The Latest Post A Pic Of Your Pet Thread posted Sun Aug 6 2006 23:06:07 by YYZflyer
For The Hetero/Bi/Lesbos Of Anet: Maria Sharapova! posted Thu Aug 3 2006 02:59:29 by KFLLCFII
Paul Eells, The Voice Of The Razorbacks Dies posted Wed Aug 2 2006 07:37:04 by Touchdown777