Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I don't suggest procreation is the ONLY basis for marriage.
Your premise was that the institution of marriage is important because it provides social benefits to couples to promote procreation. That is the only objective difference between gay and straight couples. Everything else is subjective, and therefore it shouldn't matter what orientation a couple is.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Just1Man
The law does not restrict gays from being together...see my previous post.
Perhaps you should see MY previous post about legal technicalities and tax code differences. An American shouldn't be treated differently under tax law and/or not be able to visit his/her partner in the hospital simply because he/she is gay. That, by definition, is discrimination and is unconstitutional under the 14th amendment.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Just1Man
Make no mistake, many pro-choice wish to be allowed to terminate a life because it would be easier on themselves, notwithstanding a life-threatening issue.
In the case of a rape victim, do you allow it if the rapist was not convisted? What if the trial lasts a little too long...perhaps she has already birthed the baby. Should she be allowed to rid herself of the painful memories of the rape by terminating the baby's life? What if She is an abused wife. Should she be allowed to terminate her 4 year old to rid herself of the painful memories of her abusive husband? I the case of the latter 2 scenarios, I expect the argument that those are ridiculous examples and that they could put those children up for adoption, but then you said we don't have a civilized health care system so that is out.
I never said that "abortions of convenience" don't happen. What I am trying to say is that the right wing tries to portray women that have had abortions as wild party girls that get knocked up one day, have an abortion the next, and are out living it up again by the next weekend, and that's nonsense.
The rape victim shouldn't have to rely on the court to determine if she was raped. Surely you don't consider our justice system infallible? Only the victim knows if she was really raped or not, and it should be up to her to decide to end the pregnancy if she thinks that is best for her. I've read about women that carried a rapist's baby to term; others get abortions to cut ties with a horror they've experienced. It's not the government's call, that's for sure.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Just1Man
The fact is our health care system is the most sophisticated in the world. That sophistication comes at a price of course, you can't buy a Cadillac for the price of a Yugo. Perhaps you meant the cost of health care?
Our health care technology is pretty cutting-edge, but that's where it stops. Other industrialized nations have FAR better access, life expectancy, preventative care, and so on. By almost any objective metric, our health system is middle-of-the-road. To use your analogy, we're buying a Chevy and paying for a Mercedes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Just1Man
You misunderstand pro-life if you think it conflicts with potential for war. Perhaps Clinton should have said "Abortion should be rare, but legal and safe.
I completely understand "pro-life:" Anti-abortion. Real Pro LIFE means anti-war, anti-death penalty, pro-universal health care, and so on. You can't be pro-life in the fetus stage and be totally OK with threatening life after that. That, my friend, is called hypocrisy.
Last edited by dave.dawsn; 02-25-2011 at 02:13 PM..
Affairs are not illegal, but they are not recognized like a marriage. Good Point, perhaps GLTB should add affairs to their agenda. Why should a partner who has had an ongoing relationship for, i.e., 14 years not have the same rights as the spouse! Doesn't that spouse deserve preferred taxation rights?
At this point, the discussion has gone off the rails. You said gays wanted to make it legal to have wild sex orgies with eachother which is flat wrong.
Now, you are trying to ignore the fact that heteros do it to, and pointing out that affairs are not recognized like marriage. Further, now you are suggesting gays should add that to their crusade.
Benefits! (Same thing can happen on other grounds. Estates are contested frequently)
A rose by any other name...You started your orignial quote by saying that it would leave marriage intact, but then you admit it is equal by another name. Let's not kid ourselves.
Equal protection under the law, benefits, the whole nine yards. Those things are their rights as Americans and should not be infringed upon. Yes, it is the same thing by another name. I never didn't admit that. My proposal uses a different term for the same thing as an effort to compromise with religious people who feel strongly about the word "marriage" and don't want to see it redefined. Therefore, the state calls it a union instead. Problem solved.
At this point, the discussion has gone off the rails. You said gays wanted to make it legal to have wild sex orgies with eachother which is flat wrong.
Now, you are trying to ignore the fact that heteros do it to, and pointing out that affairs are not recognized like marriage. Further, now you are suggesting gays should add that to their crusade.
Could you be more demeaning?
The discussion always goes off the rails with conservatives because they know they don't have any ground to stand on. It comes down to discrimination against people that are different or "icky" and about cramming a religion/belief system/ideology down everyone's throat. They try to talk you into circles and lure you into a "gotcha" moment, all the while ignoring pesky obstacles like "facts" and "science."
In a twisted way, I'm lucky to be a caucasian, heterosexual male with a college degree, but my heart aches for the people that are marginalized by these ideologues. I hope our society can eventually truly embrace equality.
I never said that "abortions of convenience" don't happen. What I am trying to say is that the right wing tries to portray women that have had abortions as wild party girls that get knocked up one day, have an abortion the next, and are out living it up again by the next weekend, and that's nonsense.
How do you know this is "nonsense?" Are you privy to information about the sex act which caused the aborted pregnancy of all abortions in this country? I found this comment questionable because of all the women I have known to have had abortions, all of them were because they just didn't care to use birth control and were partying it up. One girl had two abortions of convenience. I also believe more abortions are of convenience than folks like to think because when I graduated high school in the mid-90s, I read in our county newspaper that our counties abortion rate was twice the Indiana state rate. Being an upper middle class suburban county, this really didn't surprise me. The only girls in the county high schools I knew that were having babies in their teens were the "poor" or "lower income" girls, usually from "broken homes." Funny how all of a sudden, after high school, a small handful of "popular, rich" girls that I graduated with all got pregnant out-of-wedlock. I find it hard to believe they weren't having sex in high school, and for those that were, I find it even harder to believe they magically became less safe when they got into college.
This isn't really a comment pro or against abortion, I just wonder how you can make a statement that most abortions aren't "OH <bleep>, I need to get this taken care of!" type abortions. Self-surveys are unreliable, because most folks can't even bring themselves to admit they were reckless and having unsafe sex, so I can see women lying as to the reason for the abortion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dave.dawsn
The discussion always goes off the rails with conservatives because they know they don't have any ground to stand on. It comes down to discrimination against people that are different or "icky" and about cramming a religion/belief system/ideology down everyone's throat.
I can say the same thing about some liberals (as well as conservatives) and plural marriage. Before the war on gay marriage, there was a war on Mormons who wanted to be able to engage in multiple spouse marriage. Any liberal who is against this is a hypocrite. If marriage can be for Harry and Steve, why not Tom, Mary, and Jane? Now that this country is seeing an influx of Muslims, plural marriage will again become an issue. If same sex marriage is deemed legal, I can't fathom plural marriage still being outlawed. Marriage is now nothing more than "tax breaks" and "legal rights," and I don't see why consenting adults who want to join in a multi-spouse marriage should be denied those exact same rights that gay people are asking for.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dave.dawsn
Basically, it comes down to this: conservatives have been on the wrong side of every major human rights issue in American history. Consider the conservative stance on the following:
As others have pointed out, there simply isn't a compelling, rational reason to make laws that restrict the freedom of others to live their lives as they choose.
The unions, with Democrats on their side, are all for making it as easy as possible to force individuals into joining their unions. Why? $$$$$$. I would say neither side is good for individual freedom. Democrats want to limit what kind of firearms people own, or in some cases (DC, Chicago, San Francisco) out right ban them. To me, those issues are big, and definitely restrict the freedom of individuals.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Toxic Toast
Tell me why we need to add a gay marriage ban to the state constitution.
Are you kidding, or do you really not know/grasp why they want an amendment? For those who aren't in the know:
Right now, gay marriage is only illegal as defined by a state law. If someone files another lawsuit against the law, all it takes is one court ruling and the law is overturned. It is much easier to try and get laws overturned vs. an amendment in a state constitution. I picture the law as a wall made of 2x4s and drywall. Taking the law and essentially making it an amendment to the state constitution pretty much turns it into a brick wall...much harder to tear down legally.
Are you kidding, or do you really not know/grasp why they want an amendment? For those who aren't in the know:
Right now, gay marriage is only illegal as defined by a state law. If someone files another lawsuit against the law, all it takes is one court ruling and the law is overturned. It is much easier to try and get laws overturned vs. an amendment in a state constitution. I picture the law as a wall made of 2x4s and drywall. Taking the law and essentially making it an amendment to the state constitution pretty much turns it into a brick wall...much harder to tear down legally.
RaveKid, I understand completely what the amendment does. I am asking why we need it. As in, " I understand you want to turn this wall of 2x4s into a brick wall; but please provide your rationale beyond because it be stronger." Why do you feel the need to make it stronger?
Perhaps you can climb upon your genius pedestal and tell me all about it.
Last edited by Toxic Toast; 02-25-2011 at 03:48 PM..
How do you know this is "nonsense?" Are you privy to information about the sex act which caused the aborted pregnancy of all abortions in this country? I found this comment questionable because of all the women I have known to have had abortions, all of them were because they just didn't care to use birth control and were partying it up. One girl had two abortions of convenience. I also believe more abortions are of convenience than folks like to think because when I graduated high school in the mid-90s, I read in our county newspaper that our counties abortion rate was twice the Indiana state rate. Being an upper middle class suburban county, this really didn't surprise me. The only girls in the county high schools I knew that were having babies in their teens were the "poor" or "lower income" girls, usually from "broken homes." Funny how all of a sudden, after high school, a small handful of "popular, rich" girls that I graduated with all got pregnant out-of-wedlock. I find it hard to believe they weren't having sex in high school, and for those that were, I find it even harder to believe they magically became less safe when they got into college.
This isn't really a comment pro or against abortion, I just wonder how you can make a statement that most abortions aren't "OH <bleep>, I need to get this taken care of!" type abortions. Self-surveys are unreliable, because most folks can't even bring themselves to admit they were reckless and having unsafe sex, so I can see women lying as to the reason for the abortion.
My comments about abortion were meant to draw a distinction between the women who get abortions of convenience and women who get them for other reasons. I didn't offer any statistics or claim that I have definitive answers about how it all breaks down. What I do know is that the right wing uses examples much like yours to try to convince people that these are the ONLY circumstances that motivate abortion, and that, like I said before, is nonsense.
Again, abortion is a profoundly complex issue, and to try to distill it down and pretend like there is a one-size-fits-all answer is simply impossible. This goes beyond the dogmatic, conservative worldview of "black and white," "good and evil." There are shades of gray, and they must be recognized.
Perhaps the best solution is to do our best to limit abortions. De-funding Planned Parenthood is NOT going to prevent abortions; rather, we must bring sex education out of the 19th century, make contraceptives and condoms affordable and widely accessible, and make adoption a more attractive option.
To paraphrase Bill Clinton (again): Abortions should be safe, legal and rare.
Quote:
Originally Posted by indy_317
I can say the same thing about some liberals (as well as conservatives) and plural marriage. Before the war on gay marriage, there was a war on Mormons who wanted to be able to engage in multiple spouse marriage. Any liberal who is against this is a hypocrite. If marriage can be for Harry and Steve, why not Tom, Mary, and Jane? Now that this country is seeing an influx of Muslims, plural marriage will again become an issue. If same sex marriage is deemed legal, I can't fathom plural marriage still being outlawed. Marriage is now nothing more than "tax breaks" and "legal rights," and I don't see why consenting adults who want to join in a multi-spouse marriage should be denied those exact same rights that gay people are asking for.
You can't say the same thing about plural marriage because pluralism (sic?), unlike sexual orientation, is a choice based on an external factor like religion. Sexual orientation, on the other hand, is a predisposition determined by genetics.
This is one of several straw-men used by conservatives to argue against marriage equality...it's old and tired.
Quote:
Originally Posted by indy_317
The unions, with Democrats on their side, are all for making it as easy as possible to force individuals into joining their unions. Why? $$$$$$. I would say neither side is good for individual freedom. Democrats want to limit what kind of firearms people own, or in some cases (DC, Chicago, San Francisco) out right ban them. To me, those issues are big, and definitely restrict the freedom of individuals.
In a union workplace, it is important for all workers to contribute to the union, otherwise some workers would be benefiting from collective bargaining without paying dues. Unions, in turn, are important to prevent the abuses of workers.
I will concede that individual freedom is restricted in this case, but again, there are shades of gray. It is wholly invalid to compare union membership with restricting a couple from marrying or to telling a woman what she can and can't do with her body.
Quote:
Originally Posted by indy_317
Are you kidding, or do you really not know/grasp why they want an amendment? For those who aren't in the know:
Right now, gay marriage is only illegal as defined by a state law. If someone files another lawsuit against the law, all it takes is one court ruling and the law is overturned. It is much easier to try and get laws overturned vs. an amendment in a state constitution. I picture the law as a wall made of 2x4s and drywall. Taking the law and essentially making it an amendment to the state constitution pretty much turns it into a brick wall...much harder to tear down legally.
You're 100% right. Conservatives are perceptive enough to realize that public opinion is shifting on this issue, and fast. They know that if they don't write their hate into the constitution, it will be wiped out very soon.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
