Gay marriage debate centers on history vs. change

J_B wrote:

joefromchicago wrote:

The state, in other words, has an interest in seeing that kids are raised in families that have both a mother and a father (even though, as the dissent admits, Massachusetts allows both gay couples and single persons to adopt children).

Which, to me, is an obvious contradiction to the point of the dissent.

I think the dissent has a lot of logical problems. For instance, if the state has an interest in promoting legitimate births and discouraging illegitimate ones, then that's as much an argument in favor of state-sponsored abortion as it is for state-sponsored marriage. I doubt, however, that the dissenters would endorse the former as enthusiastically as they endorse the latter.

Likewise, if legitimate procreation is the state's interest in marriage, why are benefits unrelated to procreation given to married couples, and, particularly, why are they given to childless married couples? For instance, spouses cannot be compelled to testify against each other, yet that testimonial immunity has nothing whatsoever to do with procreation. So what's the relationship? Where's the state interest?

0 Replies

Marriage should be replaced by articles of incorporation.

0 Replies

... or get the state out of the business of defining who's married and who isn't. This may sound crazy at first. But it's also the current state policy about defining who's friends and who isn't -- and this works pretty well.

0 Replies

Thomas wrote:

Momma Angel wrote:
I feel like I am beating my friggin head against a brick wall!

Since that doesn't stop you from continuing, I must conclude that you like beating your head against a brick wall, frigging or not. So what are you complaining about?

Just entering this quote in the A2K 2006 Academy Award sweepstakes for Most Screamingly Logical Statement that doubled as a Public Service.

0 Replies

Thomas
[quote="Thomas"]...I agree with Thomas on this one. All of these problems arise because of state marriage license requirements.
However, there are legal protections required when family members find themselves in conflict. Could corporation marriage be the answer? I don't know.
We got into this marriage trap when humans became agriculturists. They needed some method to retain and pass down land to their offspring. From there, it was all down hill. Had to control women's bodies to be sure their children were those of the husband. And on and on...BBB[quote]

The celibacy requirement in the Catholic Church was the result of attempts to protect ownership of church property. Priests married and passed their church land-buildings to their offspring. The church didn't like that and so they made priests swear to celibacy to prevent procreation. Hasn't worked very well.

BBB

0 Replies

The Catholic Church in Arizona inserts itself into politics once again.

Quote:

Gay union ban gains Catholic backing

http://www.azstarnet.com/metro/118053.php

0 Replies

Momma Angel wrote:

dys,

What I said was I would follow the law of the land unless that law contradicted God's law and just so you know, if I did go against the law of the land in favor of God's law yes, I'd be willing to do the time for it.

So, slavery was right...?

It was the law of the land.

0 Replies

Shucks, I thought that maybe someone was finally going to comment about the uppity bishops speaking out of both sides of their mouths here in Arizona, but alas, it was just Lash gettin some more licks in. Good point though. :wink:

0 Replies

It seemed incompatible to say "I'd have fought against slavery," while also saying "I would follow the law of the land."

Meanwhile, Arizona bishops must not have a good grip on the meaning of "civil liberties."

DAMN THEM!!!! <yells, raises fist to sky, drinks another beer>

0 Replies

It may have seemed incompatible when one doesn't take all other clarifying statements in context.

I would not have supported slavery. I would have fought it within the confines of the law. If I had; however, gone outside of the law to fight slavery, I would have been willing to suffer the consequences for my actions.

Did that clear it up for you, dear?

0 Replies

Lash wrote:

Meanwhile, Arizona bishops must not have a good grip on the meaning of "civil liberties."

DAMN THEM!!!! <yells, raises fist to sky, drinks another beer>

Exactly right Lash, in fact I would even say the pompus bastids have no grip at on on the meaning of civil liberties.

0 Replies

Momma Angel wrote:

It may have seemed incompatible when one doesn't take all other clarifying statements in context.

I would not have supported slavery. I would have fought it within the confines of the law. If I had; however, gone outside of the law to fight slavery, I would have been willing to suffer the consequences for my actions.

Why discriminate against gays?

0 Replies

I am sorry Lash but I am not going to have this particular discussion with you again. I think it is best we agree to disagree on the issue and just leave it at that, ok?

0 Replies

No.

0 Replies

Ok, give me just a moment then, please. I am gathering some clarification on something. I'll be with you shortly.

0 Replies

Momma Angel wrote:

It may have seemed incompatible when one doesn't take all other clarifying statements in context.

I would not have supported slavery. I would have fought it within the confines of the law. If I had; however, gone outside of the law to fight slavery, I would have been willing to suffer the consequences for my actions.

Did that clear it up for you, dear?

It is not entirely clear to me at all by this quote that you would have not supported slavery. God's law is every bit as much pro-slavery as it is anti-homosexuality.

Momma Angel wrote:

dys,

What I said was I would follow the law of the land unless that law contradicted God's law and just so you know, if I did go against the law of the land in favor of God's law yes, I'd be willing to do the time for it.

0 Replies

Lash wrote:

Just the fact that "something has always been this way" is not a very sturdy legal argument.... or moral one.

I haven't read the whole thread, but I also agree with Lash.

0 Replies

Mesquite,

Do me a favor, ok? I do not need you to interpret the Bible for me. I do not need you to tell me what I should and should not believe. I don't tell you what to believe or not to. I tell you what I believe. There is a lot more to the story about slavery in the Bible and you very well know it and your seeming slips in your memory that you know more than you are letting on is rather annoying right this second. We have delved into this discussion before and I'm sure you can go dig it up if you want to.

I am dealing with another issue right now so please, just let this rest for right now. You want to bring it up a bit later, fine. I'm there. Laughing

0 Replies

Lash,

I am in rather a quandary at the moment. While I have no real problem with how you view the world and all we seem to have come to an issue or two that seem to be what I'd consider a mirror reflection. Let's explore this just a bit, shall we?

You feel that I discriminate against gays because I do not think that same sex marriage should be legal. Now, it doesn't matter to you that the only thing I have ever done in response to this belief is to have a conversation on A2K with others and with some friends. It seems that just having this belief in my head gives you reason to call me a bigot against gays and homosexuals. It seems, that unless I completely agree with you and others than I am discriminating against gays. There are those that will agree with you and there are those that agree with me. Fine, if that is your view, that is your view. I don't agree with it, but that's the way it is.

I think you using the term towel head is discriminatory. I think it is a derogatory statement that is NOT on par with the silly slang term of redneck. You have continually tried to explain away using the term towel head as not being offensive or discriminatory because that is not how you intend it to be. Now, some may agree with you and some may agree with me. You don't agree with it, but that's just the way it is.

Tell me, Lash. Which of us is discriminating? The only difference between these two scenarios, Lash, is that I don't call you a bigot, as you have called me. I just say you have differing views than I do.

I have tried repeatedly to put this to rest with you. But you continually try to bait me. I don't understand why. If you don't like me, then fine you don't like me. It isn't going to change my life one little bit, Lash. I have forgiven you. I have no hard feelings concerning you and yet you will not let this rest. I don't understand why you won't.

I would say that these two scenarios make us pretty much the same thing, wouldn't you? I can be called discriminating against gays for my views and you can be called discriminating against Muslims for your views. We are no different Lash. There is something in everyone's life that does not agree with another. Shall we go around and call everyone a bigot and discriminatory? Well, hypocrite is a much better word. And I'd say according to these two differing views, we are both hypocrites.

Peace! Laughing

0 Replies

The word towelhead doesn't withhold rights from anyone.

If anyone else wants to take issue with that point, I'll be glad to.

0 Replies

Gay marriage debate centers on history vs. change

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know