dyermaker Posted January 24, 2004 Share Posted January 24, 2004 I have trouble articulating my position on this, any help? Link to post Share on other sites
jenny Posted January 24, 2004 Share Posted January 24, 2004 i have no idea. how very unhelpful; sorry. the only interesting argument i have heard arguing the opposite stance on this question used the etymology of the term marriage. the rest could be dismissed out of hand. Link to post Share on other sites
Author dyermaker Posted January 24, 2004 Author Share Posted January 24, 2004 I was excited when I saw your name in the new posts, I thought you'd enlighten me. Link to post Share on other sites
moimeme Posted January 24, 2004 Share Posted January 24, 2004 I'm unclear on the question. Do you mean why is it not law? Or what are the impediments? Or why oughn't they marry? Link to post Share on other sites
Author dyermaker Posted January 24, 2004 Author Share Posted January 24, 2004 What legitimate arguements are there from preventing gays to receive marital status under United States Law. No religious stuff, no moral stuff--I need something more substantial. Link to post Share on other sites
jenny Posted January 24, 2004 Share Posted January 24, 2004 hmm; well, the argument i entertained dealt with how canadian law was pointedly particular with their words as well as all possible inflections of these words. to amend these words is a serious business indeed. it was his argument that the burden of proof was on differing sexualities to prove need for change, which is, as i'm sure you know, a difficult legal position. i.e. it was the public burden to alter the definition of marriage, proper. this commits an appeal to tradition (rather than precedent) fallacy, but it was convincing nonetheless. the answer, course, is to shift the burden unto the negative assumption and denial of rights, as your question aptly and clearly does. p.s. if you are serious about the question, i'll dig up the links to the legal trials regarding this issue in canada. i could not speak for US laws. if you are into reading trials, it's terrific and *very* stimulating material. no, i can't help myself; here is one, anyway: http://www.canlii.org/ca/cas/scc/1995/1995scc49.html Link to post Share on other sites
Tony T Posted January 24, 2004 Share Posted January 24, 2004 Men and women get married. Those of the same sex form corporations and sell stock. Everybody ends up screwing everybody in the long run. Link to post Share on other sites
jester Posted January 24, 2004 Share Posted January 24, 2004 What legitimate arguements are there from preventing gays to receive marital status under United States Law. Legitimate arguments against Gay marriage? Hmm, let me count them ... And the number is...ZERO, NONE, NADA. The ban is a sordid legacy of the marginalization and stigmatization of Gays. As this place shows, with all the marital woes, marriage could use a fresh infusion of new blood. Heterosexuals, for the most part, have made an absolute bloody mess of marriage. Hell, if I had my druthers, I'd ban marriage for straights. Link to post Share on other sites
clia Posted January 24, 2004 Share Posted January 24, 2004 The legal definition of marriage is "a legal union between a man and woman as husband and wife." This definition is the underlying argument... Link to post Share on other sites
UCFKevin Posted January 24, 2004 Share Posted January 24, 2004 Because of the BS religious right that rules the country and that Bush is made to follow. Mustn't upset the sheep... Link to post Share on other sites
BlockHead Posted January 24, 2004 Share Posted January 24, 2004 sarah12 Legitimate arguments against Gay marriage? Hmm, let me count them ... And the number is...ZERO, NONE, NADA.It depends on your viewpoint. What is the function of marriage? Believe it or not, life was very hard at one time, and people actually struggled. Raising children was often too difficult for a person to handle alone. There are modern times, and people in general are spoiled rotten. We have shorter workdays, live longer lives, and have plenty of food. We take everything for granted, and mock the struggles and sacrifices made by our predecessors. Marriage was a socially binding ritual, and now it is just a caricature. Some people want to restore marriage to what it once was, but I don't think that will happen. Call it a relic if you want. Maybe it turned into a status symbol. She has X number of ex-husbands, and he has Y number of ex-wives. Maybe it turned into an extended date. Too many people seem to stay married as long as the fun lasts. UCFKevin Because of the BS religious right that rules the country and that Bush is made to follow.The way I see it, the left hates the right so much that they are making an effort to destroy every trace of the right socially and politically. Link to post Share on other sites
UCFKevin Posted January 24, 2004 Share Posted January 24, 2004 I forget where I heard this, but someone in the media recently brought up a wonderful point. Britney Spears can marry her friend because they took a joke too far. You follow that? Married as a JOKE. Whoops! Haha! That was silly! Let's get that sumbitch annulled! Meanwhile, two men or two women can't marry each other at all. Pretty (xxx) stupid when you think about it. Link to post Share on other sites
HokeyReligions Posted January 24, 2004 Share Posted January 24, 2004 States have different laws, but until the Federal government redefines marriage (and all the collateral laws that relate to marriage) then homosexual marriage won't be recognized legally. It takes a long time to make changes because the laws have a domino effect on other laws and everything needs to be modified. Changing a simple law is a long process. After that there are various religious reasons that will not accept a Federally sanctioned marriage between a homosexual couple -- but unless a homosexual couple wants to join that particular church it probably won't matter to them. Look at the history of common-law marriage between heterosexual couples. It took a while for that to develop and it is still being ironed out legally. Look at what defines a common-law marriage vs. two people living together. There is a lot to consider. It will change though -- of that I am certain. Link to post Share on other sites
jester Posted January 24, 2004 Share Posted January 24, 2004 Good point, kev, on the Britney marriage joke. I have good neighbors, two women who've lived together about 15 years and have adopted two small children, but who are prohibited from marrying each other in Pennsylvania. Better a heterosexual joke marriage/divorce in Las Vegas than two committed lesbian parents marrying. You're right, too, hokey: it is only a matter of time. Link to post Share on other sites
Clancy Posted January 24, 2004 Share Posted January 24, 2004 First of all, I agree with what Blockhead wrote re: the agenda of the left. Regarding Dyermaker's question, as a Canadian, and not informed about American law on the subject of gay marriage, I want to say that in Canada the federal legislation specificaly states that marriage is a union between a man and a women. Although Canada is considering changes in the law to legalize gay marriages here is why I think they shouldn't: 1.) The province of Quebec already has implemented the legal concept of gay civil unions. Thus, gays can be legally bound together by law without pissing off everyone who believes in the traditional definition of marriage. The Quebec model could be used across the country (and why not in the States?) 2.) Marriage is a traditional concept that has had enormous impact on society. Even while a majority of Canadians disagree with legalization of marriage for gays, the governemnt is bowing to lobby and pressure groups (in the name of the glorification of diversity and sensitivity to minorities). 3.) If we permit minority pressure groups and a liberal Supreme Court to rewrite our laws, what would prevent a Muslim lobby group from advocating the acceptance of polygamy in Canada (and presumably the States). Or, since Inuit cultures traditionally encouraged marriage between adult males and juvenile girls why shouldn't Inuit traditionalits lobby for their right to marry children? If society's foundations are so plastic what will prevent these kinds of arguments to become new catalysts for changes to marriage laws. And, if anyone wants to argue that sex between children and adults is covered under criminal codes recall that at one time so were homosexual acts. 4.) The Canadian government in 1997 decreed overwhelmingly that the definition of marriage must refer to union of a man and a woman. If in less than ten years such a fundamental shift can take place how long will it be, if the law is changed, before the established religions are forbidden by law from maintaining their right to perform only opposite sex marriages. Link to post Share on other sites
moimeme Posted January 24, 2004 Share Posted January 24, 2004 Handy to use semantics as an excuse. It seems the word 'marriage' has earned enormous respect in the case of offering it to homosexuals than it ever had before. Suddenly, there's 'sanctity' to worry about. It's just ever so convenient to trot out all these hackneyed ploys to excuse what boils down to bigotry. All you have to do is dress it up in fine language and call upon ideas like 'sanctity' and hey presto - you claim to be on the side of the angels Link to post Share on other sites
BlockHead Posted January 24, 2004 Share Posted January 24, 2004 UFCKevin Britney Spears can marry her friend because they took a joke too far. You follow that? Married as a JOKE. Whoops! Haha! That was silly! Let's get that sumbitch annulled! Meanwhile, two men or two women can't marry each other at all.If she burned a one-dollar bill, would you ban paper currency? Why would anybody take her seriously? She is a has-been singer, and a never-will-be actress. I wouldn’t base any sweeping social or political change on her. You could use her as an example, but remember, she is a Hollywood screwball starving for attention. moimeme It's just ever so convenient to trot out all these hackneyed ploys to excuse what boils down to bigotry.Save the name calling for a more gullible audience. So tell me, what would be the function of marriage in the case of a homosexual couple? Aesthetic? moimeme All you have to do is dress it up in fine language and call upon ideas like 'sanctity' and hey presto - you claim to be on the side of the angelsWhy don’t you invent a new rite of passage similar to marriage? How about something that involves the temporary binding of two people with a simpler separation procedure? Why take an existing institution and mutate it into something you like? Link to post Share on other sites
UCFKevin Posted January 24, 2004 Share Posted January 24, 2004 So tell me, what would be the function of marriage in the case of a homosexual couple? The same it would be for a heterosexual couple. Link to post Share on other sites
Vermonter Posted January 24, 2004 Share Posted January 24, 2004 Gays want to marry, move to Vermont like the rest of them!!! Or vote Howard Dean for president and it will only be a matter of time before he corrupts the whole country as much as he has good ol Vermont!!! Link to post Share on other sites
UCFKevin Posted January 24, 2004 Share Posted January 24, 2004 Boy, damn that bastard for wanting people to be happy. Link to post Share on other sites
jester Posted January 24, 2004 Share Posted January 24, 2004 Boy, damn that bastard for wanting people to be happy. Link to post Share on other sites
lostforwords Posted January 24, 2004 Share Posted January 24, 2004 3.) If we permit minority pressure groups and a liberal Supreme Court to rewrite our laws, what would prevent a Muslim lobby group from advocating the acceptance of polygamy in Canada (and presumably the States). Or, since Inuit cultures traditionally encouraged marriage between adult males and juvenile girls why shouldn't Inuit traditionalits lobby for their right to marry children? If society's foundations are so plastic what will prevent these kinds of arguments to become new catalysts for changes to marriage laws. And, if anyone wants to argue that sex between children and adults is covered under criminal codes recall that at one time so were homosexual acts. OMG... this thread has the makings of that damn pedophiles thread....... DAMN Jester..... you look so damn familiar...... *wink* Link to post Share on other sites
jester Posted January 24, 2004 Share Posted January 24, 2004 DAMN Jester..... you look so damn familiar...... *wink* Who me? Couldn't be. I probably just remind you of an OLD boyfriend. lost, you should start a pedophilia thread and I guarantee you that the thread hammering will commence within 12 hours of your starter post. Those boys, if nothing else, are very well organized. Link to post Share on other sites
lostforwords Posted January 24, 2004 Share Posted January 24, 2004 HAHA.. I thought you were that strappin young man..... psssssstttt (btw... left my panties in your car.... hehehe..... ) as far as the pedophiles thread..... oh man..... Ill even bet some of them came back under a different ID.... Link to post Share on other sites
jester Posted January 24, 2004 Share Posted January 24, 2004 btw... left my panties in your car.... hehehe..... ) May I keep them or must I mail them back? Please. Please. Please. Let me keep them as a souvenir of what we once had together. Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts