The continued reference to Mary Cheney by the Dems

I threw ya life-line up there, Foxy, I suggest you use it!

0 Replies

Lovely, nimh.

0 Replies

blatham wrote:

Lovely, nimh.

I agree.

0 Replies

Nimh writes

Quote:

Of course there is no discrimination between men and women - noone ever asserted there was. There's a discrimination between straight people and gay people. (If this sounds like a 'duh' moment it's because it is.)

There is no discrimination between straights and gays regarding the U.S. marriage laws. The law states that ANY unmarried consenting man of legal age may marry ANY unmarried consenting woman of legal age. There is absolutely no rule that the said couple be religious, straight, gay, black, white, short, tall, smart, dumb, in love, out of love, rich, poor, or any other criteria you wish to apply. ALL people are treated equally under the law as it exists. The only restrictions are 1) that the person be sufficiently of sound mind to choose to marry and 2) that there be no close family bloodline.

To extend marriage to gays 1) changes the definition of marriage and 2) gives gays special rights unless ANY same sex persons can marry, not just gays. Therefore, it makes sense to provide a civil union to provide necessary protections and benefits to all persons of any gender who, for whatever reason, do not wish to or are unable to marry.

0 Replies

OCCOM BILL wrote:

I threw ya life-line up there, Foxy, I suggest you use it!

Ah yeah, if everything else fails, compare gays with polygamists. Or you could even throw in a reference like "what about a brother and sister who want to marry, should we let them?!" If you're real brave, you could even venture into the topic of man-animal pairings in order to argue why we just shouldn't go down that slippery slope. Of course, that's what the opponents of interracial marriage did, too.

0 Replies

I believe I made the mixed marriage point some 60 pages ago...but not as well as nimh

0 Replies

I saw the lifeline Obill and thank you very much. My proposal for civil unions, however, covers it as I favor people being able to form themselves into family units via legal civil unions and I see no problem with such units including more than two persons. Such units could include all the rights of inheritance, hospital visitation, shared insurance, etc. that all unmarried persons currently have difficulty getting.

0 Replies

I'm stilll marvelling at how possessive some people are about the word marriage.

Willing to extend the legal rights of marriage but not the word. <shrug>

0 Replies

While others are unable to accept the same rights under a different word.

0 Replies

Interesting thought ehbeth:-)

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

There is no discrimination between straights and gays regarding the U.S. marriage laws. The law states that ANY unmarried consenting man of legal age may marry ANY unmarried consenting woman of legal age. There is absolutely no rule that the said couple be religious, straight, gay, black, white, short, tall, smart, dumb, in love, out of love, rich, poor, or any other criteria you wish to apply. ALL people are treated equally under the law as it exists. The only restrictions are 1) that the person be sufficiently of sound mind to choose to marry and 2) that there be no close family bloodline.

That, plus the restriction you put up first: that one partner must be male and the other must be female. Just like the old marriage laws afforded everyone a similar set of equally applied rights, with the only restrictions being that one partner was male and the other female, and both partners were of the same race.

Basically, you're still repeating the exact same argument the opponents of interracial marriage used - just with sexual orientation replacing race as the elephant in the room (is the expression, I believe).

Look at this:

Foxfyre's distant precursor wrote:

There is no discrimination between blacks and whites regarding the U.S. marriage laws. The law states that ANY unmarried consenting white man of legal age may marry ANY unmarried consenting white woman of legal age, just like ANY unmarried consenting black man of legal age may marry ANY unmarried consenting black woman of legal age. There is absolutely no rule that the said couple be religious, straight, gay, short, tall, smart, dumb, in love, out of love, rich, poor, or any other criteria you wish to apply. ALL people are treated equally under the law as it exists. The only restrictions are 1) that the person be sufficiently of sound mind to choose to marry and 2) that there be no close family bloodline.

Back then, any person could marry who he/she wanted - as long as (s)he was of the same race and of the opposite gender. There was no discrimination - both blacks and whites were given the same opportunity. Namely, to marry someone of the same race and the opposite gender.

Fast forward a century or some, and one of those two qualifiers has been rejected as being discriminatory. Why do you insist the other isn't?

0 Replies

Edit: Never mind, Nimh beat me to it.

0 Replies

LOL Einherjar, about you making the exact same point I made ... it was that easy, huh?! Razz

0 Replies

nimh wrote:

LOL Einherjar, about you making the exact same point I made ... it was that easy, huh?!

It was kind of obvious wasn't it?

0 Replies

I understand your argument Foxy, but I think this one's stronger...

nimh wrote:

OCCOM BILL wrote:
I threw ya life-line up there, Foxy, I suggest you use it!

Ah yeah, if everything else fails, compare gays with polygamists. Or you could even throw in a reference like "what about a brother and sister who want to marry, should we let them?!" If you're real brave, you could even venture into the topic of man-animal pairings in order to argue why we just shouldn't go down that slippery slope. Of course, that's what the opponents of interracial marriage did, too.

ROTFLMAO

Nimh, I'm not against gay marriage myself... so I have no dog in this fight. If I were, I would concentrate my argument on the religious freedom of not altering the definition of the sacred institution of marriage. To some marrying the opposite sex is as much apart of their religion as thou shall not kill. Indeed, they took their sacred vows in a church for crying out loud. Long before the State got involved the "Holy Bible" made hundreds of references to marriage and left little doubt as to the meaning of the word.

Why is the introduction of polygamists so ridiculous? Do you doubt that they'd wish to have freedom to marry as well? Examine the definition:

Main Entry: po·lyg·a·my
Pronunciation: -mE
Function: noun
1 : marriage in which a spouse of either sex may have more than one mate at the same time -- compare POLYANDRY, POLYGYNY
2 : the state of being polygamous

Let's face it, there's no shortage of people living in this fashion either, is there? Would you deny that many men are born feeling this is natural? Laughing

:wink: And why shouldn't they? Whose business is it? The point is, the definition of marriage cannot be stretched to include such a contract, without altering the definition of the word.

This new definition would permanently alter the meaning of the "Sacred Vows" millions have already taken. It most certainly would dilute the meaning of the word if you include either polygamist marriages or gay marriages. Consider the introduction of polygamy to the topic simply a more exaggerated degree of definition altering than the gay marriage proposal offers in itself, okay?

Now, as a "Good Christian" I resent the idea of the State altering the meaning of the sacred vows I've taken, according to the texts in the "Holy Bible". Is that not a reasonable position to take? Couldn't the inequity of the discriminating "laws" be changed without altering the meaning of the "Holy Bible's" most sacred of institutions?

Well, of course it could. From this day forward when you get married, you enter into what's known as a "Civil Union". While all "Marriages" by the Church are by definition "Civil Unions" in the eyes of the law... there is no need to make all "Civil Unions" "marriages" contrary to the what the "Holy Bible" teaches us. Is this not a reasonable position for someone defending his or her right, to freedom of religion, to take? I think it is.

0 Replies

Question. I would really like to know why it is so important to the pro-gay marriage crowd that the centuries old tradition of marriage as it is currently defined be dissolved?

0 Replies

double

0 Replies

OCCOM BILL wrote:

Well, of course it could. From this day forward when you get married, you enter into what's known as a "Civil Union". While all "Marriages" by the Church are by definition "Civil Unions" in the eyes of the law... there is no need to make all "Civil Unions" "marriages" contrary to the what the "Holy Bible" teaches us. Is this not a reasonable position for someone defending his or her right, to freedom of religion, to take? I think it is.

And you would off course not restrict the various religious institutions rights to marry whosoever they wish and call it marriage would you? If not, I would consider your possition identical to mine.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

Question. I would really like to know why it is so important to the pro-gay marriage crowd that the centuries old tradition of marriage as it is currently defined be dissolved?

not dissolved, modified.

And the reason is the same as your reason for objecting to it, using the same term implies equality, using a different term implies inequality. What is sepparate is easier made unequal than what is joint.

How would you feel about substituting the word marriage with "civil union" in the event the couple were of different etnicity?

0 Replies

Einherjar wrote:

OCCOM BILL wrote:
Well, of course it could. From this day forward when you get married, you enter into what's known as a "Civil Union". While all "Marriages" by the Church are by definition "Civil Unions" in the eyes of the law... there is no need to make all "Civil Unions" "marriages" contrary to the what the "Holy Bible" teaches us. Is this not a reasonable position for someone defending his or her right, to freedom of religion, to take? I think it is.

And you would off course not restrict the various religious institutions rights to marry whosoever they wish and call it marriage would you? If not, I would consider your possition identical to mine.

Of course not. That too fits in the category of freedom of religion. What I'm suggesting is perhaps a new bill, to take the gay stigma off of "civil union", and adopt the term (in lieu of marriage) to mean all such contracts in the eyes of the law.

Personally, I don't have a problem with the State having a different definition of the word marriage at all. But, I'm not at all religious. However, in keeping with our grandest of all traditions (granting recognition to an old document known as the bill of rights), I can understand why a religious person would feel differently. And frankly, having just purposely looked at it through the eyes of a theist; I'm not sure how I'd vote, were I on the Supreme Court that WILL eventually make this decision.

0 Replies

The continued reference to Mary Cheney by the Dems

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know