Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 11-29-2011, 08:37 AM
 
Location: Metro DC area
4,520 posts, read 4,198,995 times
Reputation: 1289

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by MsMcQ LV View Post
I'm not the one you were replying to, but I will reply to one of your statements (questions).
I guess you can't see the offensiveness of it because you simply refuse to look at it from the perspective of that same-sex couple. Most same sex couples I know get married for the same reasons the opposite sex couples I know do - they are in love and want all the legal protections of marriage for themselves and their partners.

Why are you still harping on the legal protection issue? Have you read my numerous posts on this issue? Have you not yet realized that I AGREE that gays should be afforded full rights?


So let me ask you - if they are to be afforded the same rights and protections that marriage grants, why are you so insistent that it not be called marriage?

I've stated this many times. Because it redefines the very structure and core foundation of marriage. It is as simple (and complicated) as that. Again, you do not have to agree, but your disagreement does not eliminate my position.

How does the fact that my friends Joe and John (or Mia and Mary) can legally say they are married detract from the fact that you and your spouse can say the same thing? (Oh! And you did say earlier that my son and his wife should call their marriage a civil union instead - what the heck is that about unless you think all "marriages" should be performed in/by a church or other religious institution.)

I've stated this a few times in this thread (again, are you even reading my responses?). Gay couples can call themselves whatever they want. They can consider themselves "married" if they want. Common-law folks do this too; doesn't mean I agree or support their self-labeling.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 11-29-2011, 08:41 AM
 
Location: Metro DC area
4,520 posts, read 4,198,995 times
Reputation: 1289
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fiyero View Post
Since marriage has not historically been a religious institution, and is not religious in nature in the United States, why does the church get the right to marry?

You are aware that Martin Luther and most Protestants completely opposed marriage and Christianity being combined, because it was deemed a worldly thing right?
I really don't want to introduce too much Christianity into this thread. But how's this:

-My faith states that life began with Adam and Eve.
-In Genesis (the very beginning of life on Earth), came the following:


Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and they shall become one flesh. Genesis 2:24



This came *way* before any protests by anybody. And again, later events sought to place restrictions on the original definition of marriage.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-29-2011, 08:42 AM
 
14,917 posts, read 13,065,040 times
Reputation: 4828
Quote:
Originally Posted by JobZombie View Post
In your opinion. I believe that marriage is between a man/woman exclusively. Unfortunately for you so does a significant portion of society, not just in the US, but everywhere worldwide. On the other hand, if society really wanted same sex marriage, we would have it everywhere by now and then you would be happy with the majority calling the shots because you would get your way.
So your holding that belief gives you (and others who think likewise) the right to craft within our civil, secular law a contract called "marriage" with 1400 attached rights and then preferentially give those rights only to couples who adhere to your belief?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-29-2011, 08:42 AM
 
15,706 posts, read 11,733,053 times
Reputation: 7019
Quote:
Originally Posted by JobZombie View Post
Dying to know, I doubt it. You want something to attack and argue. Maybe it just might have something to do with 97% of the world being straight and as unfair as it might sound, the majority calls the shots. Life just isn’t fair is it? Nah, that can’t have anything to do with it.

So if the majority of the world thought murder was acceptable, we should allow it? The majority of Americans believed blacks were inferior and should not be able to marry. So by your logic, they should still be slaves.

Argumentum ad popularum. Just because it's popular or the majority doesn't make it right.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-29-2011, 08:43 AM
 
Location: Las Vegas, NV
3,849 posts, read 3,743,249 times
Reputation: 1706
Quote:
Originally Posted by MsMcQ LV View Post
And the whole point of rights being delineated in our Constitution is that there are some things about life that "the majority" should not "call the shots." Yes, society should set some limits for marriage - age requirements, number of spouses allowed (one), that both spouses be human, that both be capable of making the decision - but that they be different genders is not one of them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChocLot View Post
Why not?
Because, by deciding genders should be different, one is essentially saying that genders shouldn't be equal. By insisting on different genders, it seems to me that one is insisting that one spouse be "more equal" (or have more rights) than the other. I'm glad my marriage didn't work that way, that my late husband and I both had a say in how our marriage worked. But that's beside the point. In the 13 years or so I've been involved in these kinds of discussions, it has seemed to me that those advocating for only opposite sex marriages also had this thing about the husband 'ruling over' the wife because of the differences between men and women.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-29-2011, 08:48 AM
 
7,541 posts, read 6,256,043 times
Reputation: 1837
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChocLot View Post
Do you realize what you've just stated? Your take:

Civil unions=anyone can do it. They get full rights, under the law
Marriage- religious ceremony. No rights unless you agree to do it civilly.
yes that is what I stated. I dont see how anyone is confused by that.

If you want to keep marriage to be religious, then we should remove all legal rights for it, and only have it be performed by a church (or whatever religious authority of your religion is allowed to do it)

If you want your coupling to be recognized legally, and is given EQUAL to every couple, then they all need to go to City Hall, and get a Civil Union process done and Sign a contract (yes a CONTRACT). That's what makes it legal and then are allowed to take full advantages that are offered.

Quote:
So, you are advocating to deny rights based on the way someone chooses to form a union.
No, as you seem to not understand the underlying context:

Marriage for many should be only religious. so to keep it that way, marriage is only reserved to religious ceremonies. IF YOU WANT TO HAVE ALL LEGAL RIGHTS as a couple , then get a CIVIL UNION done at your local City hall and sign a contract. That will provide you with all the legal rights you want as a couple.

Quote:
How interesting! That's the exact opposite of what I'm saying. I'm saying full rights for all, whether it be by civil union or marriage.
that is not what you are argugin. YOU are arguing that marriage should not be "redefined" (and has been explained to you ad nauseum, that isn't being redefined, but expanded to include a class of people that aren't allowed to be covered under the term LEGALLY)

You have get the notion into your head that MARRIAGE is a LEGAL term to STATES and the FEDERAL GOVT. That's why many people do not GET MARRIEd in a church. The religious aspect if of your own choosing and you right, but in the end MARRIAGE is a LEGAL term, and can be expanded to include those that were once not included

Like with VOTING . At one time, women and slaves couldn't vote. An amendment to the Constitution expanded to include Slaves (once they were freed and considered citizens - 14th amendment) and then women.


VOTING definition wasn't changed, it was expanded to include a group of people that were once excluded.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-29-2011, 08:49 AM
 
15,706 posts, read 11,733,053 times
Reputation: 7019
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChocLot View Post
One problem. The Constitution states that all men are created equal. Any deviation from that definition is where the problem starts.

I won't even go into the "founding" of the US. Suffice it to say that I don't agree that this nation is a "white" country. I seem to recall something in the history books about Native Americans, but perhaps I'm mistaken.
And we slaughtered Native Americans because White people were superior. God cursed black people as the Bible states and separated the races, so I don't see why you think blacks deserve to be treated like white people do in this country. Blacks make up a small minority, and by JobZombie's logic, majority dictates what they want. Sorry, life isn't fair, but black people deserve to be treated as inferior.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-29-2011, 08:50 AM
 
15,706 posts, read 11,733,053 times
Reputation: 7019
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChocLot View Post
Why not?
14th Amendment.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-29-2011, 08:52 AM
 
Location: Metro DC area
4,520 posts, read 4,198,995 times
Reputation: 1289
Quote:
Originally Posted by MsMcQ LV View Post
Because, by deciding genders should be different, one is essentially saying that genders shouldn't be equal. By insisting on different genders, it seems to me that one is insisting that one spouse be "more equal" (or have more rights) than the other. I'm glad my marriage didn't work that way, that my late husband and I both had a say in how our marriage worked. But that's beside the point. In the 13 years or so I've been involved in these kinds of discussions, it has seemed to me that those advocating for only opposite sex marriages also had this thing about the husband 'ruling over' the wife because of the differences between men and women.
So, you're okay with society dictating the terms of marriage as long you agree with the terms? Gotcha.

I don't think it's saying that the genders aren't equal, but I do think it says that the genders are different. Please let us all agree that a man is different from a woman. Hopefully, this discussion hasn't disintegrated to the point where we can't even agree on that.

And again, your example STILL does nothing to challenge the fact that marriage is a bond between a woman/man.

The treatment of the woman, doesn't change the core foundation of marriage.

The race of the man/woman doesn't change the core foundation of marriage.

The number of husbands/wives doesn't change the core foundation of marriage.

Not even the AGE of the couple changes the core foundation of the marriage.

The gender of man/man, woman/woman, DOES change the core foundation.

Bottom line.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-29-2011, 08:52 AM
 
Location: Here
2,887 posts, read 2,626,875 times
Reputation: 1981
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fiyero View Post
So by your logic, they should still be slaves..
Wrong again Fiyero.

Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top