|
Post by Flitzerbiest on Feb 22, 2014 11:23:16 GMT -6
You really have a knack for playing up the apocalypse, MC. Gays and lesbians are lining up to get married with the aim of destroying marriage? No--they have been denied its benefits and want a piece of the action. Destroying it is the last thing that they want. Those pursuing the path of marriage want social normalization of their relationships and, as we have mentioned, equal protection under the law.
On this latter point, you have made the assertion that they can marry heterosexually if they want to, and thus are equally protected. This is a sham argument. First of all, such marriage would be of no benefit or interest to that individual, their spouse or the state. Mandating marrying contrary to sexual orientation is a recipe for marital disaster, and no one benefits from this. Current marriage laws require no existential sacrifice from heterosexual couples. Love, commit, promise, sign. Homosexuals who wished to marry would be forced to wrestle with a fact of their existence over which they have no control. It is becoming painfully obvious to everyone, including fairly conservative courts, that in order for the process to be equal, no extra burden must be imposed. Love, commit, promise, sign.
And, if the homosexual subculture is a warren of rabbits with ADD, humping anything that breathes and some things that don't, might not the state have some interest in rewarding and recognizing stable, committed homosexual relationships?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 22, 2014 11:55:18 GMT -6
Gays already have equal protection under the law. They can marry just like heteros can. They must marry a person of the opposite sex. Dammit. I knew I would regret responding here. Now I have more weak arguments to answer. When will it end??? Marriage is no longer a lifelong commitment and it is not enforceable. Marriage needs to be rescued, not given the final, fatal blow-- grown up men playing make believe and society pretending it isn't pure theater. The state derives its legitimacy from the people. The people of this country have made it abundantly clear that they do not favor gay marriage. In all but two states it has been imposed on the people by the courts. In one instance by the legislature against the will of the people. Naturally enough, after years of the chattering elites in New York, the universities and the entertaiment industry pushing it, people are starting to get tired of the whole mess. But "winning" that way does no one any good and just weakens real marriage further. I think you would find the Princeton Principles helpful. This does not demonstrate a good grasp of what marriage is. The paper the group produced is called Marriage and the Public Good: Ten Principles I hope this is readable. I cannot edit a message once posted and I cannot figure out quite how to quote in pieces. How disappointing. My arguments are not weak, in fact they have been persuasive to the majority of federal court judges who have heard these cases. I've got a reasonably high opinion of my own legal mind... (I graduated from law school in 1986, the same year I married the love of my life and spouse of 27+ years, so I think I understand the spiritual and social aspects of marriage pretty well too.) In any case, I'll not waste my time arguing constitutional law with someone who throws out the mother of all red herrings: "Gays already have equal protection under the law. They can marry just like heteros can. They must marry a person of the opposite sex." Good grief! That canard is precisely the same as this paraphrase: North Koreans already have the right to free speech. They can speak out just the same as Americans can. They just must speak words approved by the government. Jim
|
|
|
Post by Flitzerbiest on Feb 22, 2014 12:10:43 GMT -6
I hope this is readable. I cannot edit a message once posted and I cannot figure out quite how to quote in pieces. How disappointing. My arguments are not weak, in fact they have been persuasive to the majority of federal court judges who have heard these cases. I've got a reasonably high opinion of my own legal mind... (I graduated from law school in 1986, the same year I married the love of my life and spouse of 27+ years, so I think I understand the spiritual and social aspects of marriage pretty well too.) In any case, I'll not waste my time arguing constitutional law with someone who throws out the mother of all red herrings: "Gays already have equal protection under the law. They can marry just like heteros can. They must marry a person of the opposite sex." Good grief! That canard is precisely the same as this paraphrase: North Koreans already have the right to free speech. They can speak out just the same as Americans can. They just must speak words approved by the government. Jim Every time you say, "Good grief", this comparison pops into mind: Sorry about the size discrepancy, but I don't know how to fix it without altering and reposting the images, and with such an expression you do, after all, stand on the shoulders of a giant.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 22, 2014 12:16:54 GMT -6
You really have a knack for playing up the apocalypse, MC. Gays and lesbians are lining up to get married with the aim of destroying marriage? No--they have been denied its benefits and want a piece of the action. Destroying it is the last thing that they want. Those pursuing the path of marriage want social normalization of their relationships and, as we have mentioned, equal protection under the law. On this latter point, you have made the assertion that they can marry heterosexually if they want to, and thus are equally protected. This is a sham argument. First of all, such marriage would be of no benefit or interest to that individual, their spouse or the state. Mandating marrying contrary to sexual orientation is a recipe for marital disaster, and no one benefits from this. Current marriage laws require no existential sacrifice from heterosexual couples. Love, commit, promise, sign. Homosexuals who wished to marry would be forced to wrestle with a fact of their existence over which they have no control. It is becoming painfully obvious to everyone, including fairly conservative courts, that in order for the process to be equal, no extra burden must be imposed. Love, commit, promise, sign. And, if the homosexual subculture is a warren of rabbits with ADD, humping anything that breathes and some things that don't, might not the state have some interest in rewarding and recognizing stable, committed homosexual relationships? Hi FB: The equal protection arguments are a legal tool the gay community and supporters of gay marriage can use to rectify discrimination. The other tool is the ballot box. By the time just a few more generations of 18 year olds hit the ballot box this will be a done deal. I know that you know the following, but I am putting it out for Cass and anyone who thinks that the legal arguments are the real issue. The real reason that gays want to be married is because they want to make a profound commitment to the one they love. As I just mentioned, I've been married for nearly 28 years. Linda and I did not marry to obtain favorable tax treatment of course! We married to formalize our deep love, our hopes for the future and our commitment to live as one before God and the state. The fact that the state encourages this with literally volumes of law is gravy for us, but we'd still have married even if married couples were treated exactly the same as platonic roommates. Why would anyone want to deny gays the right to formalize their own deep love, hopes for the future and commitment? Cass seems to be saying that gays can not, as a matter of biology and psychology, hold deep love, hopes for the future or commitment. That is obviously BS, as even aged Republicans like me know a few gay couples who obviously and demonstrably feel for their partners something very similar to what I feel for Linda. Cass has very studiously not played the Bible card. That's too bad, I'm guessing that this is his real motivation, as opposed to a bunch of psycho-babel about gays being no more than rutting dogs. My guess is that he is a shifty coward who hides his religious motivations as opposed to a fool. I could easily be wrong. I can respect the Bible angle, for personal use. In other words, if one sincerely believes that homosexuality is an abomination, at least that person has a basis for their prejudice. Personally, I do not want the state to continue supporting this fundamentally religious viewpoint as the law of the land, and the weight of the law is behind me on this. Jim
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 22, 2014 12:18:05 GMT -6
How disappointing. My arguments are not weak, in fact they have been persuasive to the majority of federal court judges who have heard these cases. I've got a reasonably high opinion of my own legal mind... (I graduated from law school in 1986, the same year I married the love of my life and spouse of 27+ years, so I think I understand the spiritual and social aspects of marriage pretty well too.) In any case, I'll not waste my time arguing constitutional law with someone who throws out the mother of all red herrings: "Gays already have equal protection under the law. They can marry just like heteros can. They must marry a person of the opposite sex." Good grief! That canard is precisely the same as this paraphrase: North Koreans already have the right to free speech. They can speak out just the same as Americans can. They just must speak words approved by the government. Jim Every time you say, "Good grief", this comparison pops into mind: Sorry about the size discrepancy, but I don't know how to fix it without altering and reposting the images, and with such an expression you do, after all, stand on the shoulders of a giant. That's fine by me. There are lots of far lesser folks to be compared to!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 22, 2014 12:58:17 GMT -6
You really have a knack for playing up the apocalypse, MC. Gays and lesbians are lining up to get married with the aim of destroying marriage? No--they have been denied its benefits and want a piece of the action. Destroying it is the last thing that they want. Those pursuing the path of marriage want social normalization of their relationships and, as we have mentioned, equal protection under the law. On this latter point, you have made the assertion that they can marry heterosexually if they want to, and thus are equally protected. This is a sham argument. First of all, such marriage would be of no benefit or interest to that individual, their spouse or the state. Mandating marrying contrary to sexual orientation is a recipe for marital disaster, and no one benefits from this. Current marriage laws require no existential sacrifice from heterosexual couples. Love, commit, promise, sign. Homosexuals who wished to marry would be forced to wrestle with a fact of their existence over which they have no control. It is becoming painfully obvious to everyone, including fairly conservative courts, that in order for the process to be equal, no extra burden must be imposed. Love, commit, promise, sign. And, if the homosexual subculture is a warren of rabbits with ADD, humping anything that breathes and some things that don't, might not the state have some interest in rewarding and recognizing stable, committed homosexual relationships? Hi FB: The equal protection arguments are a legal tool the gay community and supporters of gay marriage can use to rectify discrimination. The other tool is the ballot box. By the time just a few more generations of 18 year olds hit the ballot box this will be a done deal. I know that you know the following, but I am putting it out for Cass and anyone who thinks that the legal arguments are the real issue. The real reason that gays want to be married is because they want to make a profound commitment to the one they love. As I just mentioned, I've been married for nearly 28 years. Linda and I did not marry to obtain favorable tax treatment of course! We married to formalize our deep love, our hopes for the future and our commitment to live as one before God and the state. The fact that the state encourages this with literally volumes of law is gravy for us, but we'd still have married even if married couples were treated exactly the same as platonic roommates. Why would anyone want to deny gays the right to formalize their own deep love, hopes for the future and commitment? Cass seems to be saying that gays can not, as a matter of biology and psychology, hold deep love, hopes for the future or commitment. That is obviously BS, as even aged Republicans like me know a few gay couples who obviously and demonstrably feel for their partners something very similar to what I feel for Linda. Cass has very studiously not played the Bible card. That's too bad, I'm guessing that this is his real motivation, as opposed to a bunch of psycho-babel about gays being no more than rutting dogs. My guess is that he is a shifty coward who hides his religious motivations as opposed to a fool. I could easily be wrong. I can respect the Bible angle, for personal use. In other words, if one sincerely believes that homosexuality is an abomination, at least that person has a basis for their prejudice. Personally, I do not want the state to continue supporting this fundamentally religious viewpoint as the law of the land, and the weight of the law is behind me on this. Jim There are so damn many silly things in Cass's posts... A plethora of provocation! Anyway, before I log off for the day, I want to ask a question about this one:
"Marriage is no longer a lifelong commitment and it is not enforceable. Marriage needs to be rescued, not given the final, fatal blow-- grown up men playing make believe and society pretending it isn't pure theater."
Cass is right and wrong that marriage is not a life long commitment. It certainly is a lifelong commitment at the inception, as evidenced by the marriage vow itself. Some people change or grow apart or in many cases the commitment was ill advised to start with or maybe one party to the marriage is a scoundrel. So divorces happen. This has always been the case, so the bit about marriage, "no longer" being a lifelong commitment is specious. Marriage is at it always has been. Some last, some don't. More importantly, the statement, "Marriage needs to be rescued, not given the final, fatal blow..." clearly means that SSM threatens the institution of heterosexual marriage itself. How could that be? Seriously. How in the world could widespread SSM change the nature or quality of any heterosexual's marriage? It is inconceivable to me that the nature and quality of my own heterosexual marriage would be affected in any way by anyone else's marriage. Marriage is, after all, pretty much the most personal commitment made in anyone's life. In times of war, anarchy or burglary spouses will die to protect their spouses. How could a bond that routinely motivates such self-sacrifice be affected by the genders of the married couple down the street? Jim
|
|
|
Post by Flitzerbiest on Feb 22, 2014 13:01:34 GMT -6
On the subject of gays not really wanting marriage, I think Colbert recently quipped something along the lines of, "80% of homosexuals now favor same sex marriage; the other 20% just don't want to have to go to one more damned wedding."
|
|
|
Post by showmedot on Feb 22, 2014 17:47:48 GMT -6
I'd just like to know which of MC's goodbyes is the real one.
I think we're up to at least three unless I lost track. Nothing like empty assurances.
|
|
|
Post by stevec on Feb 23, 2014 7:11:18 GMT -6
I've been wondering why MC is such an angry gay hating person? What type of person does so much research on gays, marriage, and STD's? Who reads Homosexual Journal? Seems to be a bit of self-loathing going on, and/or perhaps someone who feels guilty about being divorced, or someone who has contracted STD's a couple of times from men who strayed - "The lady doth protest to much".
|
|
|
Post by woodrowli on Feb 23, 2014 9:01:11 GMT -6
I've been wondering why MC is such an angry gay hating person? What type of person does so much research on gays, marriage, and STD's? Who reads Homosexual Journal? Seems to be a bit of self-loathing going on, and/or perhaps someone who feels guilty about being divorced, or someone who has contracted STD's a couple of times from men who strayed - "The lady doth protest to much". Just my opinion. Some people seem to think that what they disagree with is contagious. The result becomes fear of catching what they don't agree with and hatred of it becomes their immunization. The logic seems to be that hatred is a form of prevention.
|
|
|
Post by stevec on Feb 23, 2014 11:04:40 GMT -6
I've been wondering why MC is such an angry gay hating person? What type of person does so much research on gays, marriage, and STD's? Who reads Homosexual Journal? Seems to be a bit of self-loathing going on, and/or perhaps someone who feels guilty about being divorced, or someone who has contracted STD's a couple of times from men who strayed - "The lady doth protest to much". Just my opinion. Some people seem to think that what they disagree with is contagious. The result becomes fear of catching what they don't agree with and hatred of it becomes their immunization. The logic seems to be that hatred is a form of prevention. Hmmm, I wear a spiritual condom 24-7, but I suspect you knew that.
|
|
|
Post by showmedot on Feb 23, 2014 11:05:54 GMT -6
Ahhh, Trout, such a romantic.
"The real reason that gays want to be married is because they want to make a profound commitment to the one they love."
I don't think we can confidently state anything of the sort. Sure, the media interviews zero in upon couples who state or appear glowingly happy to be able make a public statement of their commitment. It doesn't fulfill the desired image to interview gay newlyweds who proclaim, "We'd have stayed together anyway, but damn skippy we're going for the tax and legal benefits! Who isn't if they've any sense?"
I'm acquainted with two gay couples who married for the legal benefits. One couple in their mid-60's have lived together for 40 years and married as soon as Iowa legalized it. The other, in Colorado, married in another state shortly after the federal decision. They married solely for the federal tax break, they said, despite having been together for over 25 years.
Survey enough hetero couples who are longterm live-in's, and I'd bet you'll find that most who eventually marry do so for legal or some other financial benefit. We married only because I'd walked out of a job gone bad and needed medical insurance. Hubby got it free then. We'd been together for ten years at that point. Although technically common law by then, we'd never taken legal advantage of that. Did we feel any more profoundly committed to each other? Hell no! We simply endured the judge's overly flowery exhortations and went home to dinner.
|
|
|
Post by Flitzerbiest on Feb 23, 2014 12:21:10 GMT -6
I'm acquainted with two gay couples who married for the legal benefits. One couple in their mid-60's have lived together for 40 years and married as soon as Iowa legalized it. The other, in Colorado, married in another state shortly after the federal decision. They married solely for the federal tax break, they said, despite having been together for over 25 years. Well, ok Dot, but those couples have been together for 40 and 25 years respectively. It's not like they really needed to make much more of a public commitment to each other any more--the point was already well proved. They were, in all but the legal sense, married, and perhaps went for the legal because that's all they were still lacking. I think in most cases, Trout is right--homosexuals want/need to make the same sort of public commitment as heterosexuals do at the beginning of their life together, and there is a substantially more romantic component than for those who marry late.
|
|
|
Post by stevec on Feb 23, 2014 12:37:11 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by woodrowli on Feb 23, 2014 13:34:07 GMT -6
One thing that is misunderstood is that the Legal contract of Marriage and the Religious definition of Marriage are 2 different things.
Us theists do have the right to govern who can participate in our particular flavor of Marriage.
But, we should have no say over who can or can not, enter into the Legal Civil contract of Marriage. That is no different in the eye of the law than a merger of corporations, which is also often called a marriage.
|
|