Aileron Posted October 6, 2005 Report Posted October 6, 2005 Monte, if you mean 'traditional' as in 'used thousands of years ago before the Roman Empire', then yes I guess women were considered their husband's property. Since that time, while they weren't given equal rights, they didn't really have the property status. Don't I have a right to make my own arguement? Quit saying I'm supporting something that I'm not. Yes, people will get married for a lot of reasons, but the reason we have marriage as an ins!@#$%^&*ution is for family. Those marrying for other reasons might not fulfill the reason we have marriage, but they aren't expecting us to change anything to accomodate them. I don't know how gay marriage would affect heterosexual couples...its a crazy world. But isn't it logical to assume that if we change an aspect of family with about 6 million families in the country, that we would cause massive changes? Fractal Theory isn't an arguement for "always stick to tradition"...there is no valid arguement for that. It merely says that its everyone's business because such changes would affect everyone. You call it paranoia...I'm just saying we should be carefull which dominos we knock down, and that if someone wishes to knock down the domino right next to ours, it certainly is our business. This issue affects everybody. This doesn't mean we shouldn't do it, it only means that first off the opinion of the majority shouldn't be invalidated, because it is their concern too. They aren't pressing their opinion down the gay couple's, as a matter of fact its the gay couples who are pressing their opinion on the majority when the majority has every right to be concerned about this issue. Secondly, if you do want to change society, there should be a very good reason. Gays are not the-other-black-people. How would having gay couples enrich our family structure? How would gay couples enrich our communities? Why do such couples require a marriage certificate to do this? Answers to these questions may exist, but I for one would like them written down before we go turning society upside down.
AstroProdigy Posted October 6, 2005 Author Report Posted October 6, 2005 Are you kidding me with this women haven't been considered property since before the Roman Empire? Other groups don't need us to change the rules for them because the rules are already set up to include them. This "marriage must be between a man and a woman" emphasis is meant to exclude homosexual couples. You say that it would change the entire fabric of marriage, but you have yet to explain HOW it would affect heterosexual families. No Aileron, it is not the opinion of the majority that matters when the oppression they are enforcing on a minority has no basis and has no affect on the majority. Let me put the last thing you said in the basis of 100 years ago and replace gay marriage with interracial marriage:"Secondly, if you do want to change society, there should be a very good reason. Black people are not the-other-white-groups. How would having interracial couples enrich our family structure? How would interracial couples enrich our communities? Why do such couples require a marriage certificate to do this? Answers to these questions may exist, but I for one would like them written down before we go turning society upside down." You need to realize that this is just another social ennigma that will change in the future and future generations will think "How could our grandparents have thought something this unjust?"
MonteZuma Posted October 6, 2005 Report Posted October 6, 2005 What Astro said. Aileron. You are scared of the unknown. You've said it yourself. You call this 'fractal theory', but there is nothing scientific about your view at all. There is absolutely no evidence supporting your hypothesis. You have totally ignored the link that Astro posted that outlines very clear reasons why gay people need some form of recognition for their relationships. You can argue whether or not it should be called a 'marriage', but no fair-mined person can argue that gay people are not disadvantaged in certain situations because they don't have a marriage certificate or some other form of legal acknowledgment of their special relationship with their partner. The fact of the matter is that a legal union or marriage between two homosexuals will not affect you in the slightest - except that it offends your Christian sensibilities. Thats ok. People can argue for or against anything they like on principle, or on the basis of religious or moral grounds, but claims that gay unions/marriages will have catastrophic social consequences are not supported by the facts. For proof, take a look at countries or provinces that already have gay marriages or unions.
Greased_Lightning Posted October 6, 2005 Report Posted October 6, 2005 Something just came to my mind when I was reading this and decided to pose the question: In a case of a medical decision (like a surgery or a Do Not Resuscitate (sp?) order), which party has the power to make a decision: The person's immediate family (parents, siblings, etc) or their homosexual partner? That could really get dicey in the case of different laws in different states as to who has power of attorney or whatever its called. Im interested to hear what your opinions are... as for me, that's a real toughie and it depends on the definition of the "marriage". Even though I don't support it, I would say that the "partner" has the higher legal right. Discuss.
AstroProdigy Posted October 7, 2005 Author Report Posted October 7, 2005 The homosexual partner has no legal power over the decision because they are not considered a spouse under the current laws. Therefore, the family of the person are the only ones that can decide. This excludes massachusetts, of course. This is just one of the many rights that marriage or some sort of legal union brings.Let me repeat the link of all the rights involved with civil union: http://scribbling.net/1049-federal-rights-...-marital-status
MonteZuma Posted October 7, 2005 Report Posted October 7, 2005 Even though I don't support it, I would say that the "partner" has the higher legal right. Discuss.Yeah. As Astro said, the gay partner presently has no legal rights. Hence gay couples are unfairly disadvantaged. A medical power of attorney is a work-around that could help for an expected medical condition.
MonteZuma Posted October 7, 2005 Report Posted October 7, 2005 A P of A is a do!@#$%^&*ent that authorises someone you nominate to make decisions on your behalf...
»i88gerbils Posted October 7, 2005 Report Posted October 7, 2005 Yes. It's a huge power, and the only loophole for stable homosexual families.
Aileron Posted October 7, 2005 Report Posted October 7, 2005 I'm not kidding you with "women weren't considered property since before the Roman Empire" statement...its true! They weren't considered equal partners. She wasn't considered an equal economic or social partner to her husband, but in the medieval period in Europe (granted I don't know the details of every culture on the planet), one could not trade a cow for somebody's wife. I guess I should stop going over every detail and just end this particular stupidity right now...okay, "women shouldn't be the property of their husbands, therefore we should allow same-sex couples to marry." I think that statement is missing some logic. This "marriage must be between a man and a woman" emphasis is meant to exclude homosexual couples"emphasis"? Its a definition out of a dictionary...its nuetral. Definitions can change, but my point is that no historical social change involving marriage needed to. And the point is...inter-racial marriages fit in it. Marriages that were between different social classes fit. Heterosexual marriages that were made for family, sex, money, whatever also fit. Alternative lifestyles like celebacy or joining some commune don't fit, but they never asked that we call them a marriage. If Priests wanted to be considered legally married, it wouldn't fit, would it? If homo-sexuals want rights, can't they ask for rights as a homosexual couple rather than rights as a married couple? Why can't they bake their own pie? Why do they have to take a piece of ours? If they want rights to make medical decisions for their partners, they should change the laws concerning who is allowed to make medical decisions. The same thing goes for every one of the rights in Astro's link. No Aileron, it is not the opinion of the majority that matters when the oppression they are enforcing on a minority has no basis and has no affect on the majority. Astro, true, but you have the oppression arrow pointed backwards. I pointed this out in my last post. Gay marriage of a case of the minority oppressing their will on the majority. The majority oppressing their will on the minority would be us forcing homosexuals to become heterosexuals. The two groups leaving each other alone would be us allowing gays to be homosexual while they in turn respect our beliefs. (Thus allowing gay sex) This is the case of the minority taking the beliefs of the majority and twisting them around to their own end. You need to realize that this is just another social ennigma that will change in the future and future generations will think "How could our grandparents have thought something this unjust?" Or maybe people will come to their senses, realise what this issue is really about and drop it, and YOUR grandkids will wonder why you were such a nutcase. Put your crystal ball away Nostradamus. How many times do I have to repeat myself? Homosexuals are not the-other-black-people! Its a different issue, not a rerun of the 1960s civil rights movement. Monte...Fractal Theorey is a valid scientific theorey. Its main area of application is Mathematics, but shows up repeatedly in real systems. I figured if Social Darwinism holds water, this does too. First off, I will apply another scientific law outside its application...Newton's law of motion. A body at rest stays at rest unless there is an outside force acting on it. What this means is that if I want the status quo, I don't have to have a single shread of logic supporting it, unless somebody else tries to cause movement. You call it "scared of change" because I indeed haven't really put forth any logic...the reason I have not is because I don't have to and am waiting for Astro to make stronger positive moves before I do anything. I don't need a massive arguement supporting heterosexual marriage...I have one, but don't need it...and I think I will wait until I see a really good one supporting homosexual marriage before I'll use it. All I'm pointing out with fractal theory is that this issue is often viewed at small scale by supporters, usually asking us why a specific couple can't get married and pointing out that if those two were allowed to it really wouldn't affect the big picture. All I'm pointing out is that this isn't of such a small scale...its a very big national issue. By changing the definition of marriage, you slightly change the shape of what family is. This in turn affects how families interact with each other. Now, if you changed one family, it means very little. However, if you change the shape of all the families, the overall picture doesn't fit the same way. It doesn't prove much...it just proves that changing the definition of marriage would affect things on a national and societal level. Its not a cry of catastophe...I'm just saying that you affecting more people than just Jim and Bob.
AstroProdigy Posted October 7, 2005 Author Report Posted October 7, 2005 It's as if you aren't listening to what we are actually saying, but instead hearing what you want to hear. THIS IS NOT NOR HAS THIS EVER BEEN AN ISSUE OF EITHER ONLY HETEROSEXUAL MARRIAGE OR ONLY HOMOSEXUAL MARRIAGE IS LEGAL AS YOU ARE INFERING. Stop being obsessed with technicalities of the dictionary and start looking at the real issues here. Monte and I have asked you several times HOW allowing a form of civil union for homosexuals would affect straight families and you have yet to have listed any. Your argument seems to have been changing throughout your posts. At the beginning you said that there are no rights whatsoever gained by marriage and therefore there is absolutely no reason to allow civil union for homosexuals to what your argument seems to be now as there should be some sort of ability to have a civil union between two homosexuals, but just not calling it marriage. Fine, don't call it marriage. The word "marriage" is basically just a word to the government if the actual "civil unions" offer the same rights. A gay couple could say they are married since this is freedom of speech, but they actually have a civil union, which is basically what heterosexual couples have except their civil union is recognized by some sort of religious ins!@#$%^&*ution. Therefore, what is the argument you are making? Unless you think homosexual spouses shouldn't get any of those civil union rights then we are arguing about agreeing. Then why are we debating this issue? Looks to me like some more powerful forces are pitting Americans against Americans on an issue they agree on, but have been brought to think of it in different words. That's what is so wrong about even the prospect of making a cons!@#$%^&*utional amendment banning gay marriage, because the vast majority actually seem to support the right of civil union for homosexual couples, but they are being duked into thinking their opinions are the same of the extreme right that opposes both gay marriage and homosexuals in general.
MonteZuma Posted October 7, 2005 Report Posted October 7, 2005 Good point Astro. It is as though there is some force at work driving a wedge between people over this and other issues (abortion?, war on terror?). The force doesn't seem to be as strong in some countries (Canada, western Europe, New Zealand). I can't quite put my finger on it. I don't think the 'force' is simply religious or political. I suspect that there is another cultural/historical aspect to this.
»Ducky Posted October 8, 2005 Report Posted October 8, 2005 Didn't we have this discussion a few months back with the same outcome? Yea for posting at SSforum
»Ducky Posted October 8, 2005 Report Posted October 8, 2005 I still hold the same stance on adoption,No matter the sexual orientation, I am convinced that a homosexual couple when screened through the natural process of adoption should have the ability to adopt a child. It's a way for both the state to determine the quality of the parents and a way for a child to be loved.I'm sure I'm not the only one who looks around and thinks to himself "That person isn't meant to have children." when talking about anyone in specific. The ability to raise children is dependant on the individual.There is very little protection for a child when the biological parents are straight unless a quality is shown in which the state has to intervene. In essence, I am simply stating that any couple can have a detrimental impact on a child, only adopted cases are more likely to go better due to bureaucracy.The state of a child is constantly monitored. Alot of my opinion is based on my own childhood and the early years for some of my friends.Having 2 loving moms will always be better than having only one because someone wasn't man enough to stick around for his kid. I don't think "getting made fun of" in school is a plausable rebuttle.Had you been born from a straight family and had bad eyesight, or an extra finger, or a weird hairline; you would still be made fun of.
AstroProdigy Posted October 8, 2005 Author Report Posted October 8, 2005 I think it's important to consider the choices. Do you prefer a gay couple to adopt a child or do you prefer a child to bounce around from foster home to foster home until they're 18, when they're kicked out to survive on their own?
MonteZuma Posted October 9, 2005 Report Posted October 9, 2005 I'm under the impression that there is a shortage of kids up for adoption. The authorities can pick and choose. Afaik, the kids that bounce around from foster parent to foster parent are those are not eligible for adoption, or those with nasty behaviour problems. I'm not saying that homosexual couples can't make good 'parents', or that all heterosexual couples always make good parents. But it is important that 'straight' kids learn how men and women function together in relationships. In a healthy family situation, that is best achieved when kids watch mum and dad interact. I believe that boys and girls are advantaged by having a positive masculine and feminine role model.
»i88gerbils Posted October 9, 2005 Report Posted October 9, 2005 Sex Ed.? We already know that ignoring contraceptive-use in education is a complete & utter failure for abstinence. I think it's probably true in regards to learning about relationships, drug & alcohol-use, and other issues. Just my opinion. !@#$%^&*, I don't have the sex life of sex-maniacs like .. umm .. Mr.Ekted ( ) .. but i still know my Bowler hat from my Sombrero. Okay, .
AstroProdigy Posted October 9, 2005 Author Report Posted October 9, 2005 Yes, there is a shortage of white babies. That's what most people want because most of the adoptive parents are white. What about the minority babies or all the kids who aren't cute little 6 month olds. People only want to adopt babies. Kids have personality problems because they don't feel loved because they got bounced around from foster home to foster home. Don't forget there are huge numbers are babies you can adopt outside the US and bring them here.
MonteZuma Posted October 10, 2005 Report Posted October 10, 2005 Sex Ed.? We already know that ignoring contraceptive-use in education is a complete & utter failure for abstinence. I think it's probably true in regards to learning about relationships, drug & alcohol-use, and other issues. Just my opinion. !@#$%^&*, I don't have the sex life of sex-maniacs like .. umm .. Mr.Ekted ( ) .. but i still know my Bowler hat from my Sombrero. Okay, .Yeah...This is a little OT, and I'm not quite sure where you are going with this. My view is that if boys and girls learn to treat themselves and others with respect, sex ed. (and drug ed., etc, etc) is much less problematic, imo. I think it is almost impossible to learn that stuff at school. You start to learn this just after birth. Your outlook on the world can be totally screwed up for the rest of your life by age 3 if your parents are too focussed on mismanaging their crappy relationship to meet the baby's needs. And I don't mean food and shelter....I mean emotional needs. The wiring and chemistry of your brain forms at that early stage. Ongoing family problems just make it worse. It is better for a child to grow up in a single-parent or homosexual parents household (or perhaps even an orphanage!) than to live in a dysfunctional household.
AstroProdigy Posted December 10, 2005 Author Report Posted December 10, 2005 I just thought of an argument in favor of gay marriage. Gay marriage would actually IMPROVE the sanc!@#$%^&*y of marriage. A big problem with marriage is people get married simply because someone gets pregnant and that's not right. It also doesn't work out well. With gay marriage, you don't have to worry about someone getting pregnant because it's physically impossible! Therefore, gay marriage would actually be more stable than straight marriage, i. e. gay marriage will improve the overall sanc!@#$%^&*y of marriage. At this point, the only argument that has any merit is that gay marriage is against the bible and this is a smack in the face of the seperation of church and state. BOOYA! Also never forget to tie your shoes.
»Ducky Posted December 11, 2005 Report Posted December 11, 2005 The arguement doesn't quite work when you actually define the sanc!@#$%^&*y of marriage as a whole due to different viewpoints. While one may suggest only marriage should be confronted out of love, another might disagree and believe than convenience is a better reason.Both, have equal outcomes whether it be widow or divorce. While on a broad scale, you make sense, you are only stating a fact based on your own opinion which while majority shared; isn't that of everyone.
LearJett+ Posted December 11, 2005 Report Posted December 11, 2005 I just thought of an argument in favor of gay marriage. Gay marriage would actually IMPROVE the sanc!@#$%^&*y of marriage. A big problem with marriage is people get married simply because someone gets pregnant and that's not right. It also doesn't work out well. With gay marriage, you don't have to worry about someone getting pregnant because it's physically impossible! Therefore, gay marriage would actually be more stable than straight marriage, i. e. gay marriage will improve the overall sanc!@#$%^&*y of marriage. At this point, the only argument that has any merit is that gay marriage is against the bible and this is a smack in the face of the seperation of church and state. BOOYA! Also never forget to tie your shoes.If you're speaking of sanc!@#$%^&*y of marriage, gay marriages would destroy it. The church defines marriage as being between a man and a woman - a man and a man or a woman and a woman would totally disrupt sanc!@#$%^&*y. Ok, !@#$%^&*uming that the church didn't care about who it is between, this argument is weak and almost silly. Just because you watch television and they show people getting married because someone is pregnant, does not mean that it happens often. Who is to say that marriages with people getting married like that is unstable? Now that I think about it, no one even said that gay marriages were unstable... It is very disadvantageous psychologically to a child to grow up with gay parents. Their early stages of development would be distorted with same-sex affection. It's not as simple as, "they would grow up more open-minded", they would be morally and socially confused. Let them marry, but do not let them adopt.
Recommended Posts